POLITICS - NRA Backs Ban F.Y.I.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:05 pm

No big deal? Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, fine, until they start messing with the defination of "mentally ill". Prozac user, Welbutrin user, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder etc. Could/will come a day if you've been on the "happy pill" -

NO GUN FOR YOU!!

"Everybody on both the sides of the issue of firearms' ownership joined together," said Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, a former NRA board member and another chief sponsor of the bill.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... A-GUNS.xml[/u]

Please take no offense but everyone may want to reconsider their NRA membership.

Thanks, Bunkloco

86er · Post by **86er** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:36 pm

I read the NICS Improvement Act in detail before, during and after passage. The NRA helped to clarify issues, make more specific definitions and build in safeguards. The story you linked is flawed in several ways - see for yourself after reading the NICSIA. NRA is the only voice we have with enough mass to make a difference.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:

Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a â€œuser feeâ€

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:39 pm

Joe, I posted a rebuttal to almost every one of these on my thread about this... viewtopic.php?t=1323

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:46 pm

DON'T OVER-REACT. Would you rather have it the way the antis want it, or do you want some remedies and exclusions. 86er is right, the legisation is much better. The sky is NOT falling; I don't want crazy folks out loose with guns either.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:03 pm

Griff wrote:DON'T OVER-REACT. Would you rather have it the way the antis want it, or do you want some remedies and exclusions. 86er is right, the legisation is much better. The sky is NOT falling; I don't want crazy folks out loose with guns either.

Griff, a person under treatmet for a chronic condition is no more "crazy" than a Diabetic - who can also do some pretty weird stuff when off their insulin.

Should Diabetics be prohibited from "possession" because they could possibly go off their meds?

Should I have to give up my RKBA because some Suit says that my since my wife is a "prohibited person" I can't have ready access to my guns/ammo either?

That's what HR2640 SAYS.

It can't be read in a vacuum. It has to be read along with ALL the other Fed Regs it applies to, especially 18CFR 44, 922.

Possession is not Possession anymore. It's now "Constructive Possession", and when my gun is in my Bed Holster, I violate Federal Law.

Boy, ain't that nice.

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:11 pm

bunklocoempire wrote:No big deal? Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, fine, until they start messing with the defination of "mentally ill". Prozac user, Welbutrin user, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder etc. Could/will come a day if you've been on the "happy pill" -

NO GUN FOR YOU!!

"Everybody on both the sides of the issue of firearms' ownership joined together," said Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, a former NRA board member and another chief sponsor of the bill.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... A-GUNS.xml[/u]

Please take no offense but everyone may want to reconsider their NRA membership.

Thanks, Bunkloco

Quite the first post bunklocoempire (and what a handle!). Welcome to the fire!

Look, I don't like this legislation. I wrote a number of letters to NRA board members and my reps opposing it. But now it will become law. The POTUS will sign it. This is exactly WHY I became a LIFE MEMBER of the NRA. My reasoning is this...

The NRA is THE pro-gun organization in the country. It is THE organization that is effective in lobbying congress. It is THE organization that voters listen to. BUT, I do think they have their heads up their nether regions now and again. So, I opted to get my life membership so that I'd be eligible to sit on the board.

Will I get nominated? Will anyone vote for me? I don't know, but I have to take the first step to change the organization from within and I put my money where my mouth is and stepped up. I would hope that everyone else would do the same.

old goat · Post by **old goat** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:24 pm

...Hobie,

...If you promise, truthfully, to not "rubber stamp" whatever one or two of the current NRA leaders want, I'll vote for you. If you are not nominated, I'll vote write-in for you.
...A change for the better would be welcomed by me.

...old goat

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:37 pm

Well, this particular bill has changed a lot since Carolyn McCarthy started it but... it opens the door, at the very least, to do what Old Ironsights and Bunklocoempire say it will do. With a Dem POTUS and the judges they will select and get approved, we are up the proverbial creek sans paddle. I can't believe the NRA staff and/or board collectively don't see this. The thing is that some board members do, the Nuge for one.

BTW, if you do write me in, do as David T. Hardy recommends and only vote for the 5 or so people you really want to be on the board. When you vote for all 14 or so of the 20 or so nominees the slackers tend to accumulate undeserved votes.

Pepe Ray · Post by **Pepe Ray** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:09 pm

Hobie;
Did you ever hear of Neal Knox?
Good luck!
Pepe Ray

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:15 pm

Pepe Ray wrote:Hobie;
Did you ever hear of Neal Knox?
Good luck!
Pepe Ray

Oh, yeah. And how do you think he did?

I would hope that one wouldn't have to be so, ummmm, strongly worded to get things done. They got him gone in the end though and that is what always happens. Perhaps it should after a while. Even the best fighters need some R&R, time to consolidate and reorganize, before they head back into the fight. I believe it is a fight, part of the fight against evil in this world.

The Lewis · Post by **The Lewis** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:29 pm

It seems a lot of folks don't understand "will not be infringed". It seems simple enough to me. Anyone can own a gun, that is in our constitution, If they use it to try to harm you then use your gun. You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't support keeping guns from some people and then get upset when the call to keep guns from all people comes.

DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LAW THAT 'INFRINGES' ANYONES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

45-70marlin · Post by **45-70marlin** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:54 pm

compromise on issues like this could get us all in trouble. NRA needs not to compromise on this sort of thing. they have the power to stop this stuff. we were screwed on this socalled law.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:19 pm

86er, thanks for your thoughts and pointing out the specific info. I understand the NRA view and even those of the poiticians, but I don't agree. For my own sake I have to keep it simple and what The Lewis mentions is nice and simple.

It seems a lot of folks don't understand "will not be infringed". It seems simple enough to me. Anyone can own a gun, that is in our constitution, If they use it to try to harm you then use your gun. You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't support keeping guns from some people and then get upset when the call to keep guns from all people comes.

DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LAW THAT 'INFRINGES' ANYONES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

Hobie, bunklocoempire is the name of my business, had to call it something and it looks good on the IRS tax forms. Yeah first post, I don't have alot to offer in the way of lever action mods reloading etc. ( I do love the levers!) but I did have to wait

14 days for a background check living next to a sketchy neighbor (he already had a gun). I will pipe up when any infringin' or comprimising comes to my attention.

I do appreciate all here for sharing their knowledge of the levers and their knowledge/take on issues.

Thanks, Bunkloco

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:28 pm

The Lewis wrote:It seems a lot of folks don't understand "will not be infringed". It seems simple enough to me. Anyone can own a gun, that is in our constitution, If they use it to try to harm you then use your gun. You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't support keeping guns from some people and then get upset when the call to keep guns from all people comes.

DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LAW THAT 'INFRINGES' ANYONES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

Folks who favor this oppressive legislation probably consider themselves to be both patriotic and reasonable men.

The problem is that they don't consider it an infringement if it doesn't directly affect them.

It only affects those People whom they consider to be "low-lifes" and "crazies".

In their eyes, that makes it patriotic and reasonable.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:08 am

I know I'm voting for Hobie when the time comes!

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:39 am

The Lewis wrote:It seems a lot of folks don't understand "will not be infringed". It seems simple enough to me. Anyone can own a gun, that is in our constitution, If they use it to try to harm you then use your gun. You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't support keeping guns from some people and then get upset when the call to keep guns from all people comes.

DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LAW THAT 'INFRINGES' ANYONES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

Gang members across the USA are resting easier knowing you are on their side

Sorry, once you've been convicted of a crime, you give up more than the 2A due to your conviction....most sane people would not have it any other way.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:22 am

BlaineG wrote:
The Lewis wrote:It seems a lot of folks don't understand "will not be infringed". It seems simple enough to me. Anyone can own a gun, that is in our constitution, If they use it to try to harm you then use your gun. You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't support keeping guns from some people and then get upset when the call to keep guns from all people comes.

DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LAW THAT 'INFRINGES' ANYONES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!
Gang members across the USA are resting easier knowing you are on their side Sorry, once you've been convicted of a crime, you give up more than the 2A due to your conviction....most sane people would not have it any other way.

As if that has ever stopped them.

I'm SOOO glad that such viscious folks like oh, Class D Felony Jaywalkers, Check Kiters and whomever else one Government or another decides is a "felon" is so undeserving of the Right to Self Defense that you don't mind if they die at the hands of the Violent Ones who don't care about "gun laws" anyway...

Remember, a "Felony" is whatever the GOVERNMENT says it is. Make sure you & your wife aren't doing somthing "illegal" in your bedroom...

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:32 am

Lets all try REALLY hard and think of ONE law that has kept guns out of evil peoples hands

Ive never even heard of a robber, rapist, or murderer who has complained about not being able to arm themselves.

I HAVE HEARD STORIES ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WERE HARASSED AND THREATENED AND HAD A HARD TIME LEGALLY OBTAINING ARMS FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE. AND PAID THE PRICE WITH THEIR LIVES.

Smell the coffee before it evaporates plz.......

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:11 pm

Gang members across the USA are resting easier knowing you are on their side

Sorry, once you've been convicted of a crime, you give up more than the 2A due to your conviction....most sane people would not have it any other way.[/quote]

I disagree. Gang members are not going to obey any gun control law so it does no good to pass them. Gun control laws impair ONLY the law abidding.

Name one other 'Right' that people lose due to a criminal conviction.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:33 pm

BAGTIC wrote: Gang members across the USA are resting easier knowing you are on their side Sorry, once you've been convicted of a crime, you give up more than the 2A due to your conviction....most sane people would not have it any other way.

I disagree. Gang members are not going to obey any gun control law so it does no good to pass them. Gun control laws impair ONLY the law abidding.

Name one other 'Right' that people lose due to a criminal conviction.[/quote]

All true.........so, let's legalize all currently illegal drugs since they can get them anyway......A couple other rights would be liberty and voting.... Even in the old west, common sense was used: the barkeep or sheriff would round up arms to be given back when the boys sobered up the next morn...... One thing for sure: Openly facing off with the Gubment ain't gonna work...you'll just be another headline, unless we organize and get on the same page of the playbook.......Most sane Men don't sign up for anarchy

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:43 pm

BlaineG wrote:...Most sane Men don't sign up for anarchy

No sane being would sacrifice the rights he considers most precious, just for the sake of imposing his tastes or opinions on others. And yet it seems that each of us disapproves of, and wants to outlaw, some one little thing that somebody else wants.

There is only two types of Government: Corrupt and None.

Recorded human history and what we can infer from archaeology goes back some eight thousand years. In all of those eighty centuries, the one question we see being fought over most bitterly and killed over most brutally and died over most horribly has always been "who shall have the power to tell others what to do?"

Not a corrupt human/governmet, that's for sure.

Isn't Insanity defined as doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting a different result?

Prohibition of THINGS has NEVER worked.

The best way to stop Violence, is be prepared to USE violence Justly agains those who would use it UNjustly.

That's tough to do when the Just keep getting told that they can't have the tools to keep the Predators at bay.

POLITICS - NRA Backs Ban F.Y.I.

POLITICS - NRA Backs Ban F.Y.I.

Re: POLITICS - NRA Backs Ban F.Y.I.