• 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.

Washington Post headline

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

kimbercarrier

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
721
Location
hampton, Virginia, USA
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.:monkey
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

1st freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
317
Location
dumries, Virginia, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

1st freedom wrote:
A staement from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA,

...
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.

I don't know why this is so hard for some to understand. NICS is a necessary evil. And, strategically, it is better for pro-gun/rights advocatesto haveNICS operating more effectively than not.

Strategic is a concept that some people just don't get.

Kudos to the NRA forproviding smart, agressive and strategic advocacy of American gun-rights.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Okay, Hank, we get it. You're laying it on a little thick.

kissass.gif
 
Top