President signed gun control bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you've been reduced to using Sarah Brady's spin? Do you realize how pathetic that is? Is there the remotest possiblility that Larry Pratt would lie to you to get your money?

Maybe you could tell me something that the GOA has actually accomplished other than catering to the intellectually adolescent?

Please note that the rest of us are using the actual Bill to prove our points, ok? I'm sure you're used to the concept that you occasionally miss important things. This is one of them.
 
I guess those of you who think this is the greatest victory in history for the 2nd amendment have more faith in D.C. than I do.When Chuck Schumer,Carolyn McCarthy and the Brady campaign all break out the champagne because of the signing of this bill,then somehow GOA was 100% wrong in opposing it.Sugar coat your side of the story all you want,but you'd better start coming up with good excuses now for why the next AWB is the way to go because when the Democrats get in,GOA will likely be the only line of defense us gun owners have.
So you've been reduced to using Sarah Brady's spin? Do you realize how pathetic that is?
Click to expand...
Go ahead and explain to me how Sarah Brady's spin benefits gun owners.If you think for a second that the Brady campaign doesn't affect how the general populace views gun ownership,then that is what is truly pathetic.
 
While I'm as concerned as anyone about infringements on the Second Amendment or rights in general, I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned about this particular law. As far as I can tell, it doesn't create any new classes of restricted people.

On the issue of whether insane people should be able to buy guns, I'm of the opinion that if you are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, then you're too dangerous to be outside a mental institution. Guns are not the only deadly weapons. Anyone can find out how to make homemade explosives on the Internet using ingredients available at many hardware stores. (Look on YouTube for videos of kids playing with explosives they've made.) Anyone can use a hammer to kill people individually, quickly, and almost silently by simply walking up behind them and hitting them hard on the head. Buildings can be set on fire in the dead of night. You get the point...

Far more odious and tyrannical legislation than this is already on the books. My problem with the NRA isn't their support of this latest law; it's their apparent unwillingness to challenge older laws that are more destructive of the Second Amendment (e.g., bans on AP ammo and newly-manufactured machine guns). Laws that prohibit people from harming the innocent are fine. Laws that serve only to increase government power over the citizenry are unacceptable (and essentially void in my view).
 
I guess those of you who think this is the greatest victory in history for the 2nd amendment have more faith in D.C. than I do.
Click to expand...

Please point me to who said this was "the greatest victory in the history of the 2nd amendment" or stop lying.

Sugar coat your side of the story all you want,but you'd better start coming up with good excuses now for why the next AWB is the way to go because when the Democrats get in,GOA will likely be the only line of defense us gun owners have.
Click to expand...

Tell me what you know about the death of the AWB as it relates to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and what the NRA had to do with it

I'll bet that you can't answer in ten minutes. If you can't, you're too underinformed for me to even discuss this with you.

Good luck!
 
And here's the link for those who complained about my leaving it out.

http://www.gunowners.org/a010808.htm

Please point me to who said this was "the greatest victory in the history of the 2nd amendment" or stop lying.
Click to expand...
It's implied by your incessant defense of an anti gun bill who's major supporters are the who's who list of gun haters!!!
Tell me what you know about the death of the AWB
Click to expand...
The main reason the AWB died was because of its "sunset clause".
 
That's not what we're complaining about.

Personally, I'm compaining about your obvious falsehoods.

In addition to the deception I pointed to immediately above, you also said that this Bill woud prevent children diagnosed with ADHD and women compaining of depression from owning guns.

Those are outright lies, as pointed out in the Bill itself.

With as much respect as I can muster, or you purposely lying or simply obtuse?
 
It's implied by your incessant defense of an anti gun bill who's major supporters are the who's who list of gun haters!!!
Click to expand...

and suddenly you BELIEVE that the gun haters aren't capable of spinning a defeat. Fascinating. Do you make a habit of trusting the word of the Brady's?
 
you also said that this Bill woud prevent children diagnosed with ADHD and women compaining of depression from owning guns.
Click to expand...
I sure don't recall saying such a thing,but your'e the expert and all,so I guess I must have.:rolleyes:

From GOA's link ABOVE.
"But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."
 
I apologize, Te Anau. That particular lie belonged to kjm.

Let me try again. Please point out the part of the Bill you don't like. Not the part that someone told you not to like, but the part YOU read and didn't like.

I'll wait for you to read it.
 
From GOA's link ABOVE.
"But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."


__________________
Click to expand...

Do you know what the phrase "lying by omission" means? Granted, the verbiage the GOA spoonfed you would be cause for alarm IF that was the end of the clause.

Fortunately, when a legal clause has the word "and" at the end of it, you also have to also meet the additional parameters of the clause.

Do you know what the REST of the clause says?

Here, I'll help:

(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and

(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.
Click to expand...

Do you know what de novo judicial review is? That means you get a fresh judicial look at the case! You can take it to court! You couldn't do that before this bill. This is known as relief.

The GOA left out the important part, didn't they?

Now why would they do that?

Are you insulted that they correctly suspected that you wouldn't read the actual bill?

Do you still trust them so implicitly?
 
Wow, it's interesting to see the same thing going on here as at THR. People who only read the GOA spin complaining about the NRA's sellout and the Back alley dark of night "Voice Vote".

Well, let's just get the facts out on the table.

1. It wasn't a voice vote, it was "unanimous consent" in both houses. That means all 535 Representatives and 100 Senators are on the record as voting "YES". You a want to know how your rep or senator voted ?? It's simple, they voted "YES". Yep, all of them, including Ron Paul. Any one of those 635 could have said "Whoa Nelly, I want everybody to cast and record their vote." But they would have looked very foolish since there was nobody that said they were going to vote "NO".

2. Previously there was only one way get off the "No guns for you" list and Sen Schumer blocked funding for that BATFE program. Now each state and Federal agency that can put you on the list has to have a way to take you off (known as relief from disability program). Oh and if he does block funding to the Federal Agencies (He'll have a real hard time blocking funding in all 50 state legislatures), then after a year you can sue in court. De Novo, which basically means "New Trial" as in "start over", meaning that have to prove all over again to keep you on the list, not a continuation of what put you on the list in the first place.

3. Then there's the whole getting put on the list in the first place. During the Clinton administration, Bill basically called over to the VA and said "Hey, anyone that ever came to see you about PTSD or any mental health issue, send those names over so that NICS can put them on the list. Due Process, nahh, they don't need due process, just get them on the list." And POOF, 88,000 to 144,000 veterans lost their 2A rights forever, with no chance to present their case. Oh, and they had no way to get their rights back. Now, you have to be adjudicated. That means a hearing, you can have lawyer (or six), present witnesses, present and refute testimony, etc. A diagnosis is NOT adjudication. Even being mentally ill is not enough. You have to be adjudicated (there's that word again) as a danger to yourself or others. And if you get better/cured you can apply to get your right restored. If the agency says "NO" or does nothing about your application for year, you can go to court and sue. And it's a whole new trial, and if you win the .gov has to pay your legal bills.

You think you need to go to the VA and talk to someone about PTSD, please do, because now it won't jeporadize your 2A rights (unless you are a danger to yourself or others). But "Hey Doc, I'm having bad dreams, can I talk about it with you.", won't get you put on the list.


Te Anau,

I'll make it easy for you. Stop reading the press releases and spin. Here's a link to actual bill, with the words spelled out and everything. Read it for yourself and then post WHAT YOU THINK it says/means.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

And here's 922(g)(4) of Title 18 USC
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose
of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that such person--
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;
Click to expand...

And there's the "adjudicated" word again. It must mean something completely different from "diagnosed", right ??? Otherwise they would have said "diagnosed".
 
I am glad to see that there are others, like myself, that are simply tired of hearing others, here on TFL, reguritate the same propaganda that was spoonfed to them by Larry Pratt.

Te Anau, go to the link and read the dang bill!

Just for a few minutes, forget about the GOA. Read the bill. Then ask yourself where in this bill does it do what Larry Pratt says it will.

Stop! Don't tell me what Pratt says. Tell me what you think.

In today's internet world there is absolutely no excuse for taking the word of anyone what a bill says. It can be read by anyone. Taking someone elses word for what a bill says, is simply the lazy mans way out.
 
another GOA Kool-Aid gulper said:
Here's a quick blurb from the anti gun Brady campaign page linked to above for those who don't want to bother reading the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The militant paranoia combined with a semmingly complete inability--or outright refusal, take your pick--of a minority segment of the gun-owning community is damned scary.

Proving it is when in order to continue proclaiming Larry Pratt as the Second Amendment messiah, they willingly, gleefully lower themselves and resort to using Sarah Brady horse manure spin--and then proclaiming as Gospel for the purposes of slamming OTHER gun owners who decline the Kool-Aid when it passed their way.

Unfreakingbelievable.

Sorry, but I'm so conservative I make Ronald Regan look like a New Dealer, and even *I* know that mentally disturbed people have zero business owning or possessing a firearm while their mental condition is not stable.

There is a huge difference between a pissed off veteran (of which, by the way, I was one when I discharged several decades ago) who goes out and waves his bible around on the street corner while screaming, "REPENT, ye sinners" and the pissed off, brooking veteran who says to hell with it all, and gets himself a rifle.

That is exercising a Constitutional "right" in order to purposefully violate someone else's rights--permanently.

Some of y'all may not beoenough to remember the McDonalds massacre, or the newscasts, "a man, described as a disturbed Vietnam veteran, barricaded himself in his house this afternoon after shooting his wife and two kids. Police responded to the scene. . ."

People who have or face mental challenges need HELP a whole helluva lot worse than they need access to a gun. And once the mental challenges/issues are stabilized, they can go buy whatever they want.

Sounds like the RAREST of things in D.C. . . . COMMON SENSE.

Which is apparently more than what the Pratt disciples currently possess.

SHEESH!

Jeff
 
when the Democrats get in,GOA will likely be the only line of defense us gun owners have.
Click to expand...

Please relate the long line of legislation defeated, championed or amended by the GOA which has benefited gun owners.

Hello, anyone... Buehler... Buehler...

Oh that's right, they are incapable of getting anything done because they are perceived as militia nut jobs.

The real question is how much money has Larry Pratt made off of this by conning NRA memeber into cancelling memberships and sending him money!
 
Here is a question, DID RON PAUL OPPOSE THIS? I don;t believe so and he is one of the strongest 2A advocates out there and also popular with those wearing tinfoil hats.
 
Ok, I'll admit that based on past GOA folly, I didn't even bother to investigate this cry of "Wolf!". But I finally gave in and read the bill tonight after seeing that the hullaballoo is continuing.

My analysis? Clearly the GOA calculates that the vast majority of their members won't read (or won't be able to understand) the bill. I guess there could be another possibility--that the GOA can't read and properly interpret the bill.

Read the Bill​
The real question is how much money has Larry Pratt made off of this by conning NRA memeber into cancelling memberships and sending him money!
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's his only option--it's not like the GOA can point to past accomplishments to entice members.

Speaking of accomplishments, while GOA was raising all this smoke where there was no fire, San Francisco's gun ban was struck down with the NRA's help.
 
Antipitas said:
Tell me what you think.
Click to expand...

He may not, but I already did:

I do fear (and expect) that the agencies will be defunded again each year. That seems reasonable. The provisions to restore gun rights have been in the law for over a decade - they are not new. That is why each year, anti-gunners have defunded the agencies' ability to restore gun rights. Is there some reason to expect that future years will be different from the past dozen years? If so, I have missed it.

If that function of the agency has been defunded, why should you have to wait around for them to do something they obviously will not do? If a court review is to happen because Congress refuses to fund an agency review, why should there be any delay at all?

I'm waiting. Why should people have to wait around for something which clearly will not happen? How is that "reasonable"? It's as reasonable as waiting for the sun to rise in the West.
 
And don't start with "the process takes time" and all that. The bill clearly says that if there is a year delay due to the agency being defunded then you are allowed to go to court to do what the agency was required by law to do. It's not about "things take time" it's about "we refuse to comply with the law".
 
Musketeer,
If a vote had any chance in hell of NOT passing do you think the voice vote would be taken? Realize that 90% of the votes are known to all parties well before the vote is take, especially in something like this with support on both sides of the aisle. If any representative wanted to protest the voice vote and force a real one I never saw it on this one.
Click to expand...

OF COURSE it had no chance in hell of not passing... They arranged to hold the vote with only members in favor of the bill present, so that there wouldn't be anybody present to demand a roll call! Of course, even for bills which have super majority support, the logistics of doing this will generally require holding the vote with less than a quorum present, because if you tell enough members in favor of a bill when the vote is going to be held, it will leak to a few of the members opposed, and they'll show up to demand a roll call. Which is, as a practical matter, why a voice vote on an even slightly controversial bill will involve a quorum violation, (Which, remember, violates the Constitution.) because otherwise it WOULD have been a roll call vote.

Do you understand the problems here? Setting aside the Constitutional violation implicit in quorum violations, which you evidently don't care about, (And which CSPAN is prohibited from documenting, BTW; That's why you don't get wide shots of the chamber during these sorts of voice votes.) we're supposed to be a representative democracy. How can we voters cast informed votes, if members of the legislature can arrange for us to not know who voted for a bill we might oppose?

The NRA deliberately was part of making sure it's members would not know who actually voted for this bill. That is an outrage, no matter what you think of the bill. I do not like having organizations I'm a life member of deliberately conspiring to keep me in the dark, out of fear I might disagree with them on something.

And there is no way, no way in hell, to portray that as the NRA doing right. They set out to get passed a bill they knew some of their members would oppose. Sure, fine, whatever. They also set out to make sure that the members opposed could never have the info necessary to vote contrary to the NRA's endorsement if their representative voted the way the NRA asked on a bill the member was against. Double plus NOT good.

Understand, it's possible to do the defensible, in an indefensible WAY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top