Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 'Sleeping With The Enemy', America's Most Aggressive Defender

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/sleep-w-enemy.htm

    The National Rifle Association has done it. Again.

    Having advertised itself for more than a century as the nation's foremost defender of the Second Amendment, the NRA has once again given aid and comfort to politicians -- all of the "usual suspects": Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and that perennial Judas goat John Dingell -- as well as to pressure groups like the Brady Campaign, who are determined to destroy that right, by assisting passage of a law with the potential to strip hundreds of thousands of military veterans of their basic right to own and carry weapons.

    This latest slap in the gun owner's face by the overstuffed suits at the NRA -- the same gang who eagerly signed off on the Gun Control Act of 1968, despite its origins in Hitler's Germany -- establishes the "principle" that individuals with the slightest of mental health "problem" (anyone, for instance, who ever sought professional help for mild depression or difficulty sleeping) have no inalienable right to self-defense.
    (For more information on the Nazi roots of the 1968 Gun Control Act, be sure to see Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny, available at: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=24)

    For politicians, it's a payoff: precisely the response they wished for, to the latest series of what more and more observers now believe (however reluctantly) are purposely contrived incidents in which armed criminals feel free to attack crowds of people they know are unarmed and helpless because the law -- and some corporate policies -- demand it.

    For the psychiatric profession, it enshrines their practitioners as powerful arbiters of who may or may not exercise their individual rights.

    For America's gun owners, it's just another aspect of the long, continuous, cruel hoax perpetrated by the NRA, which collects millions of dollars in membership money under the false pretense of defending rights that they have proven willing to bargain away on the slightest excuse.

    In doing so, they have empowered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to commit larger and more frequent atrocities of the kind we've become so familiar with over the years. Given past behavior, it would not be above them to pay informants, including those psychiatrists, who will attest to anybody's mental instability, trusting to the increasingly crooked court system to back the Bureau up.
    (To learn more about BATFE history, strategy, and tactics, see the JPFO documentary The Gang. Go to: http://www.TheGangMovie.com )

    Don't let the NRA suits put a fancy spin on it, it's really very straightforward: first, there was no extra gun law; then there was one -- thanks to the NRA. The last thing this country needs is another gun law. It already has 25,000. It needs to start repealing them. All of them.

    There's no way to avoid a simple but apalling truth: the NRA's crawling into bed with the Brady Campaign is exactly like the Anti-Defamation League endorsing the American Nazi Party, unthinkable, unspeakable, and disgusting. And, given the vital role that privately owned arms have played historically and currently in reducing violent crime and deterring foreign aggression, it is probably treason, as well.
    Weak, submissive behavior of this kind is not the way for Second Amendment defenders to enter an era of liberal Democratic political dominance.

    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership calls upon NRA President John C. Sigler, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Chris W. Cox (and any of the 75-member board of directors who approves their reprehensible actions) to resign their positions, forfeiting all pensions or "golden parachutes". Not for the first time, by helping to pass yet another infringement of our rights, these people have brought shame upon themselves, their organization, on gun owners everywhere, and especially their country and the Constitution that is its highest law.



    ~The Liberty Crew

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    So by making it possible for those for whom it is already illegal to possess a gun to be able to get taken off of the "denied" list, when they previously had no process in place to be removed from it, that is increasing the amount of gun control?

    As for the claim that this legislation will give psychiatrists the power to single-handedly deny people their rights to own guns, it's interesting that yesterday I was reading an article on the NRA's website saying that it wouldn't leave decisions in the hands of doctors. Which claim is right?

    Am I saying that the NRA has not screwed up? Of course not. And I'm not pleased with many of the actions of the NRA... but this piece is not one of them. If the NRA were able to get passed a piece of legislation that changed the process for purchasing Class III weapons to the same as for purchasing any other gun, I get the feeling that they would still get bashed for "supporting gun control".

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    SNIP As for the claim that this legislation will give psychiatrists the power to single-handedly deny people their rights to own guns, it's interesting that yesterday I was reading an article on the NRA's website saying that it wouldn't leave decisions in the hands of doctors. Which claim is right?
    Its gonna take wading through the language of the law itself.

    There may be enough quoting on some blogs to make sense out of it. Months ago, when it first hit the 2A grapevine there were some blogs who did some reasoned analysis, complete with quotes of various sections of the law. I just can't remember which blogs I saw it on.

    You might try hunting up something by David Hardy (Of Arms and the Law.com) or perhaps the Volokh Conspiracy.
    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.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    When they fund the people who will actually do the removal from the denied list, we'll have made progress. Until then, the left-leaning congressdogs have not changed a thing.

    And the NRA's idea that the brady bunch is crying so it must be good is sickening.
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Well, that's one more personal nail in the NRA's coffin in my book.

    Bastards.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Posting Permissions

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