I have an email that I did not open yet from "NAIG" about some gun legislation. Has any on heard about this?
Jerry
Gun control?
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
-
JerryB
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 5493
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:23 pm
- Location: Batesville,Arkansas
Gun control?
JerryB II Corinthians 3:17, Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
JOSHUA 24:15
JOSHUA 24:15
NAIG ?
Not sure what it might stand for, but so far I haven't recieved anything like that.Haven't checked my auto deleted ones since yesterday...."Don't know , don't open" , is what I go by .
..............
..............................................MUTT
..............
..............................................MUTT
Re: Gun control?
That is, I suspect, a phishing e-mail. DELETE IT!JerryB wrote:I have an email that I did not open yet from "NAIG" about some gun legislation. Has any on heard about this?
Jerry
Yes, I got one and I DELETED IT.
I've got a simple rule. When in doubt, throw it out.
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
I read it:
HR 2640 is the most dangerous far-reaching assault on your Second Amendment Rights since the Democrats gained control of Congress!
Congress is authorizing $750 million to make a substantial expansion to the instant background check database -- the very system that is violating our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This new money will be used to collect and store your personal information including your medical records.
HR 2640 will allow shrinks (psychologists and psychiatrists) and bureaucrats to decide who can own and possess firearms. Currently under the National Instant Check System (NICS) a person becomes a prohibited person, regarding firearms possession, when that person is "adjudicated a mental defective," "by a Court." HR 2640 removes your due process rights, and greatly expands the definition of a "prohibited person" to anyone who, in the opinion of any shrink or government bureaucrat, could possibly be a danger to oneself or another. For example, under HR 2640 you won't be able to call witnesses on your behalf; in fact, there won't even be a hearing.
Many of our great service men and women would be prohibited from owning firearms, if, when returning from serving our country, they are labeled "dangerous" because of a visit to doctor for stress. We all know that our great service men and women see and experience situations that may continue to give them nightmares. Are these events good reasons to permanently ban firearms ownership for these individuals? They just finished serving our country and now they may be barred from even owning the firearms they used to defend this great nation. This was tried by the Clinton administration; the names of 83,000 veterans were sent to NICS to become prohibited persons. Under HR 2640 these 83,000 veterans would be banned as well as thousands more.
HR 2640 also expands the list of "prohibited persons" by allowing shrinks to decide who is a "danger". We already know that many "professionals" in the psychiatric field believe that a firearm in the hands of any American is dangerous and therefore no person should have them. You can imagine the utter chaos this legislation will create!
Any medical "professional" could also make a similar determination. We already know that many pediatricians believe that any household with firearms is "dangerous," even if they are properly stored. Senior citizens who have trouble balancing their checkbooks could become prohibited persons under a finding of "disability" or "incapacity.â€
HR 2640 is the most dangerous far-reaching assault on your Second Amendment Rights since the Democrats gained control of Congress!
Congress is authorizing $750 million to make a substantial expansion to the instant background check database -- the very system that is violating our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This new money will be used to collect and store your personal information including your medical records.
HR 2640 will allow shrinks (psychologists and psychiatrists) and bureaucrats to decide who can own and possess firearms. Currently under the National Instant Check System (NICS) a person becomes a prohibited person, regarding firearms possession, when that person is "adjudicated a mental defective," "by a Court." HR 2640 removes your due process rights, and greatly expands the definition of a "prohibited person" to anyone who, in the opinion of any shrink or government bureaucrat, could possibly be a danger to oneself or another. For example, under HR 2640 you won't be able to call witnesses on your behalf; in fact, there won't even be a hearing.
Many of our great service men and women would be prohibited from owning firearms, if, when returning from serving our country, they are labeled "dangerous" because of a visit to doctor for stress. We all know that our great service men and women see and experience situations that may continue to give them nightmares. Are these events good reasons to permanently ban firearms ownership for these individuals? They just finished serving our country and now they may be barred from even owning the firearms they used to defend this great nation. This was tried by the Clinton administration; the names of 83,000 veterans were sent to NICS to become prohibited persons. Under HR 2640 these 83,000 veterans would be banned as well as thousands more.
HR 2640 also expands the list of "prohibited persons" by allowing shrinks to decide who is a "danger". We already know that many "professionals" in the psychiatric field believe that a firearm in the hands of any American is dangerous and therefore no person should have them. You can imagine the utter chaos this legislation will create!
Any medical "professional" could also make a similar determination. We already know that many pediatricians believe that any household with firearms is "dangerous," even if they are properly stored. Senior citizens who have trouble balancing their checkbooks could become prohibited persons under a finding of "disability" or "incapacity.â€
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
-
AmBraCol
- Webservant
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:12 am
- Location: The Center of God's Grace
- Contact:
It's just spam. No one's rights are being violated. There's nothing to worry about. If you say your rights are being violated then you're a pinko-commie-progressive-socialist-democrat. I know that's true 'cause Bill O'Reilly stated it clearly last night. No one's rights are being violated in the US. Everything's hunky dorey. Nothing to see here folks. Move right along. Documents NOW sir and how dare you put your face in the way of our jackboots??? 
[sarcasm off]
[sarcasm off]
-
J Miller
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 14885
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
- Location: Not in IL no more ... :)
I got that exact same email only it came from the NAGR. (National Association for Gun Rights.
The wording is exactly the same, same suggested letter to the editor. And at the bottom a blatant mooch for money.
I just might use their letters, but since I do not remember soliciting their news email I'm not sending them money.
Joe
The wording is exactly the same, same suggested letter to the editor. And at the bottom a blatant mooch for money.
I just might use their letters, but since I do not remember soliciting their news email I'm not sending them money.
Joe
RE: Gun Control
don Tomás wrote:
Works for me.
