Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Washington Post headline

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I would have liked to see the NRA sqeeze the dems for national reciprosity on cc. I also heard there is no avenue setup for someone to be removed from the federal database once you are on it for a legitamate reason.
    I'm not sure I like the NRA making deals.

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

    This sounds like a very good deal for the NRA and gun-rights advocates, especially in the VTU massacre aftermath.

    Why thestates weren't adequately feeding the national system is anyone's guess. It was an atrocity and a lack ofresponsibility. But now, they get paid to tighten things back up.

    People like Cho Sueng-hui (not just him but all people like him or worse) getting approvals to buy guns hurts my gun rights over the long run. I don't need goofs with guns to impinge on what I have.







  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    What really ticks me off is the quarter billion dollars in incentives to the states. Where is that going to come from? I will give you three guesses the first two don't count. So besides being a waste of time it is one more giant waste of money.

    And why is the NRA negotiating this compromise why didn't they ask me. :P

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a compromise is struck with the NRA and gun grabbing democrats. :what:

    I know, I know, it's how politics works doesn't mean I have to like it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    NRA sells out again in the face of political pressure, furthur legitimizing the illegitimate NICS check and wasting more money.



    Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system
    Did not know that. Didn't even know it was an option. Learn something new every day.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    kimbercarrier wrote:
    I would have liked to see the NRA sqeeze the dems for national reciprosity on cc. I also heard there is no avenue setup for someone to be removed from the federal database once you are on it for a legitamate reason.
    The article states...

    Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.
    I admit that the article does not go into detail with regards to these provisions. I think further analysis is necessary. It would be nice to see the bill in existing form for public scrutiny.

    There's a lot of disdain against the NRA for this bill, from what I read here and elsewhere. I have not seen the full text of the bill and know little in regards to it's provisions. So, the question I have for people is...

    Why is this bill a bad bill? It seems to me a bill to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, while not affecting the ability of another citizen to purchase firearms, and providing a provision to allow one to be removed from the NICS database would be a good thing. Is there something in this bill that I may be missing?

    How can we, the people, keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals without affecting federal legislation?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    "By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides."

    This statement says it all.Mediasemanticson such issues often forshadowslegislature, much like science-fiction foreshadows real science. The real problem herelies in the back scratching. Now the Dems are going to think that, ona whim,they can make a deal with the NRA on complicated firearms issues. I do not like the tone that is being set here. If this leads to even a quasi-NCIS clean up, perhaps I will eat some of my words but deal making with anti-gun advocates can hardly ever be viewed in a positive light. We do not marry the left "by convenience"!!!

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    vrwmiller wrote:
    There's a lot of disdain against the NRA for this bill, from what I read here and elsewhere. I have not seen the full text of the bill and know little in regards to it's provisions. So, the question I have for people is...

    Why is this bill a bad bill? It seems to me a bill to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, while not affecting the ability of another citizen to purchase firearms, and providing a provision to allow one to be removed from the NICS database would be a good thing. Is there something in this bill that I may be missing?
    I agree completely. The NRA is looking out for our interests in a strategic manner. There is nothing wrong with the bill's purpose and provisions (that could change, as Cox mentioned--in whichcase the NRA fights the proposal).

    I think the instantaneous objectors come from a base of NRA-bashing or the more guns good, less guns bad (MGGLGB) school of thought.


    vrwmiller wrote:
    How can we, the people, keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals without affecting federal legislation?
    That, is an excellent question, sir. A most excellent question. I would be very interested in reading anyone's answer to it. It would make a very stimulating thread all by itself.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Meathook wrote:
    What really ticks me off is the quarter billion dollars in incentives to the states. Where is that going to come from? I will give you three guesses the first two don't count. So besides being a waste of time it is one more giant waste of money.

    And why is the NRA negotiating this compromise why didn't they ask me. :P

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a compromise is struck with the NRA and gun grabbing democrats. :what:

    I know, I know, it's how politics works doesn't mean I have to like it.
    The NCIS is already in place,and Cho should have never been able to purchess a firearm.

    The "compromise" that "ticks" you off now has a way of clearing your name off of the NCIS database( that wasn,t there before )

    Will keep people like CHO from legally obtaining A firemarm,

    And I wont have to pay the extra $2 every time I buy a gun :celebratewhats not to like

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This is from last night's VA Alert:
    *******************************************
    10. BREAKING: NRA joins hands with gun-hater Carolyn McCarthy :-(
    *******************************************

    Whenever the NRA cozies up to the anti-gun, victim disarmament
    zealots, we have to wonder what the unintended consequences will be
    on law abiding gun owners. The article fails to mention that
    Congressman Dingell, leading the talks with the anti-gun zealots,
    resigned from the NRA Board and then proceeded to vote for the
    notorious Assault Weapons Ban.

    The NRA has told its members in the past that Carolyn McCarthy is one
    of the worst of the gun banners and now the NRA has crawled in bed
    with her!

    It's not just the NRA that's going to get a disease from this union.
    We could all pay a price.

    FLASH TO THE NRA: Carolyn McCarthy hates us and our guns. She will
    NEVER do anything good for gun owners, never. And what are YOU, the
    NRA, doing bringing us more gun control? Isn't that what Sarah Brady
    specializes in?

    What measures of this scheme are both parties (the anti-gun zealots
    and the NRA) hiding and NOT telling us about? We'll have to watch
    this one very, very closely.

    http://tinyurl.com/2fhtyz
    Apparently my first instinct jives with that of VCDL's leadership, so I feel secure in my gut feeling about this.

    NICS only exists in the first place because NRA sold out when it was created. GCA 68 exists thanks to NRA, NFA 34 not only exists because of NRA, but NRA won't even discuss it in public or in their publications because they are afraid of machineguns and more concerned with their public image than they are of looking out for our rights.

    This "deal" is just that: a deal between NRA and someone to whom NRAsays we should never give an inch.

    I've been reading the American Rifleman or America's First Freedom for the better part of a decade, now, and I have never seen NRA mention any other gun rights groups by name, unless those groups are NRA affiliates. They will not mention GOA or VCDL, but they will jump to the head of the line to pat themselves on the back for pro-gun victories.

    In a like manner, when they report this "deal" in their own magazines, they will not mention the fact that they once again are taking part in creating more gun control. Instead they will cast themselves in the role of a protector fending off the anti-gun hordes, and that only by "battling" the antis did they prevent us from losing even more.

    Oh please. Excuse me here:

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    Meathook wrote:
    What really ticks me off is the quarter billion dollars in incentives to the states. Where is that going to come from? I will give you three guesses the first two don't count. So besides being a waste of time it is one more giant waste of money.

    And why is the NRA negotiating this compromise why didn't they ask me. :P

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a compromise is struck with the NRA and gun grabbing democrats. :what:

    I know, I know, it's how politics works doesn't mean I have to like it.
    The NCIS is already in place,and Cho should have never been able to purchess a firearm.

    The "compromise" that "ticks" you off now has a way of clearing your name off of the NCIS database( that wasn,t there before )

    Will keep people like CHO from legally obtaining A firemarm,

    And I wont have to pay the extra $2 every time I buy a gun :celebratewhats not to like
    Whats not to like? This is a waste of money and time and in the process legitimizes restrictions on gun ownership and sets a precident of compromise.

    Beyond that nothing.

    Stopping a guy like Cho from legally doing anything is a rediculous notion. It was ilegal for him to have the guns on campus and to kill people he didn't seem too concerned about the legality of that. It is feel good legislation nothing less.

    And as for your $2 banana dance you will probably pay 100 times that in taxes to cover the $250,000.000. That is about a dollar for every American and we are all so keenly aware of the efficiency with which this govt. opperates.

    But I am sure we will just print more money when we need it.





  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    ...Will keep people like CHO from legally obtaining A firearm,
    If someone is adjudicated mentally deficient and a danger to himself and others through legal due process then lock him up! Keeping him from getting a "legally" purchased gun won't keep him from getting an illegally purchased gun, or some other weapon (fuel bomb, or car), and committing an illegal act killing many.

    But we'll feel good that we can say were for common sensegun control. Wow I should join the MMM. NRA gets my $25 a year for the 800lb gorilla but my big $$$$ go to those actually in the trenches fighting for rights not compromises.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    kimbercarrier wrote:
    I would have liked to see the NRA sqeeze the dems for national reciprosity on cc. I also heard there is no avenue setup for someone to be removed from the federal database once you are on it for a legitamate reason.
    I'm not sure I like the NRA making deals.
    I agree, I did not see a way for someone who needed treatment to get off the list say 20 years later.

    Anyone else notice?



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    If someone is adjudicated mentally deficient and a danger to himself and others through legal due process then lock him up!
    Amen! Unfortunately, the NRA is more interested in public relations than civil rights.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    kimbercarrier wrote:
    I would have liked to see the NRA sqeeze the dems for national reciprosity on cc. I also heard there is no avenue setup for someone to be removed from the federal database once you are on it for a legitamate reason.
    I'm not sure I like the NRA making deals.
    I agree, I did not see a way for someone who needed treatment to get off the list say 20 years later.

    Anyone else notice?
    The article stated...

    Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.
    I further admitted, above, that this was loosely worded and warranted more scrutiny of these provisions.

    Based on the responses in this thread so far, I am willing to concede that this legislation is unnecessary on the basis that those deemed mentally unstable enough to warrant not allowing them to buy firearms (they present a danger to themselves or others) should be ordered to institutionalized treatment, not outpatient.

    Under those circumstances, a mentally unstable person would not be permitted to purchase a firearm [ through a dealer ]. However, the problem that would still remain, if not for this new deal, would be a way to be removed from the database, even though the new deal does not explain, in detail, who that would encompass.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Of course, you can petition until the cows come home, but they have your rights in their hands. You can petition the BATFE to restore your RKBA, too, but since Congress doesn't fund it it's a moot point.

    This whole system places the power over our RKBA in the hands of federal beauracrats and law engorcement agents. Is that constitutional? Does it sound right? We may be forced to accept it in the short run, but do we really want to reinforce its claim on legitimacy by backing this measure, no matter how reasonable it seems?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    How would you propose keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable? This is what I am interested in knowing.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    kimbercarrier wrote:
    I would have liked to see the NRA sqeeze the dems for national reciprosity on cc. I also heard there is no avenue setup for someone to be removed from the federal database once you are on it for a legitamate reason.
    I'm not sure I like the NRA making deals.


    I have not liked the NRA Compromising on a lot of issues to the point that I canceled my membership, and made the mistake of posting that fact, and you would have thought I was asking people to join the Communist Party or something, for committing such an un-American act.

    Truth is in my book the NRA has set themselves up as the protector of the second amendment for the sake of all gun owners that simply means you give no quarter, nor take no quarter.

    If I’m wrong here I’m sure someone will jump on me like a duck on a June bug.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    vrwmiller wrote:
    How would you propose keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable? This is what I am interested in knowing.
    That's simply not possible. No more than you can keep guns out of the hands of anyone else who has ill intent. That's the whole point of gun rights activism: gun control doesn't work.

    The NICS system, like any gun control,only works on people who use it: ie. law-abiding people who buy guns from dealers, as opposed to private transfers or theft.

    The real question is: Can you defend yourself from mentally unstable people who have firearms in their hands? The VT student victims couldn't, and I don't see NRA moving to fix THAT problem.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'll reserve final judgement until I see the Bill. It had not yet posted to Thomas as of this afternoon.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    vrwmiller wrote:
    How would you propose keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable? This is what I am interested in knowing.
    That's simply not possible. No more than you can keep guns out of the hands of anyone else who has ill intent. That's the whole point of gun rights activism: gun control doesn't work.
    Why is it not possible?


    Tomahawk wrote:
    The NICS system, like any gun control,only works on people who use it: ie. law-abiding people who buy guns from dealers, as opposed to private transfers or theft.

    The real question is: Can you defend yourself from mentally unstable people who have firearms in their hands? The VT student victims couldn't, and I don't see NRA moving to fix THAT problem.
    I'd rather prevent the problem of unqualified people getting guns if it is at all possible. And if I can't totally prevent the problem, then I want tominimize it.

    I don't believe in the "nothing's possible to fix/prevent the problem" theoriesand rationales. They're for quitters.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I read somewhere else that the FBI isn't taking people off the list. Some of the vets are trying but to no avail. Who's gonna make the FBI comply and remove them?
    Besides that I can go and buy a gun through a private sale, no checks.



  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    kimbercarrier wrote:
    I read somewhere else that the FBI isn't taking people off the list. Some of the vets are trying but to no avail. Who's gonna make the FBI comply and remove them?
    This would be a deal-breaker for me. The gov't knows few people can afford to sue to get their rights back, especially if the gov't decides to drag it out or fight it. Look at some of the trouble that gun dealers are having with ATF, New Orleans' confiscated guns not being returned, the Conaweta Co. Georgia thread.

    It ought to read something like the gov't has to prove that you're still inelegible. They have to go and get the paperwork. If you query it and they don't have a copy of the committment order, etc., then the dealer is presumed authorized to make the sale.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    A staement from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA,


    Wednesday, June 13, 2007
    Not a Gun Control Bill

    There's been a lot of confusion and questions surrounding NRA's position on a NICS improvement bill that's being written in Congress. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the anti-gun media is portraying this as a "gun-control" bill. Let me make it clear: It's not.

    The NICS bill, as written, wouldn't expand the definition of a prohibited person. It wouldn't disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. In fact, it would provide an opportunity for people who've been disqualified to clear their name. Right now, folks don't have that ability. Gun owners lose nothing in the bill as it's currently written, and in fact the bill improves the system for those who've been caught in the bureaucratic red tape.

    So why is this being called a gun-control bill? In part because one of the bill's authors is anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It's easy to call any piece of legislation from McCarthy anti-gun, even if it's not. But the biggest reason the media's calling this "gun-control" is because they're desperate to report on a gun-control victory in Congress.

    Here's the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won't stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that's designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they've completed treatment for an illness, and that's it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage.

    As the bill is introduced, the NRA will be keeping a close watch over the language, and I'll be the first to tell you if its original intent is corrupted. But it's not gun control, no matter what the media say.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    I can live with this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •