Author Topic: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.  (Read 2174 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« on: April 17, 2009, 05:16:06 AM »


NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill
After Virginia Tech Shootings, House Passes Bill To Strengthen National Background Check System

CBS
Thursday June 14, 2007

 After 52 years in Congress, John Dingell knows it sometimes takes a "rather curious alliance," such as between the National Rifle Association and the House's most fervent gun control advocate, to move legislation.

That's what took place Wednesday when the House, by voice vote, passed a gun control bill that Rep. Dingell, D-Mich., helped broker between the NRA and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

"We’ll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sheryl Atkisson

"As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent national need to improve the background check system" to keep guns out of the hands of those barred from buying them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

The measure would require states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited under a 1968 law from buying firearms, and report those lists to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used in the rampage. But the state of Virginia never forwarded this information to the national background check system.

The House action came as a panel ordered by President Bush to investigate the Virginia Tech shootings issued its findings, including a recommendation that legal and financial barriers to NICS submissions be addressed.

Mr. Bush, in a statement, said the report made clear that better information sharing between federal and state authorities "is essential in helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to punish those who break the law." He said he was "closely following legislative efforts to strengthen the instant background check system."

The panel also urged federal agencies to expand programs to prevent school violence and said the Health and Human Services Department should focus on college students in its mental health public education campaign.

Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said the report disclosed "the deep complexities of the issues facing college campuses today" and would advance government scrutiny of issues related to safety vs. personal freedoms.

The House bill next moves to the Senate, where gun control advocate Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says he is talking to NRA ally Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and there is a "very strong" chance of passage.

"When the NRA and I agree on legislation, you know that it's going to get through, become law and do some good," says Schumer.

The legislation requires state and federal agencies to transmit all relevant disqualifying records to the NICS database. It also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and it imposes penalties — including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law — on states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine said Wednesday that in ordering state executive branch agencies to upgrade background check reporting last month he found that Virginia was one of only 22 states reporting any mental health information to the NICS. He said the House bill was “significant action to honor the memories of the victims who lost their lives at Virginia Tech.”


"Millions of criminal records are not accessible by NICS," said McCarthy, sponsor of the bill.
"I came to Congress in 1997, in the wake of my own personal tragedy, to help prevent gun violence," said McCarthy, who ran for office after her husband was gunned down on a Long Island commuter train in 1993. "Ten years later, I am more committed than ever to this cause."

McCarthy has been among the leaders in the largely futile efforts to legislate gun controls during the past dozen years of GOP control. The last major gun control bill, to ban some assault weapons, passed in 1994, the last year of a Democratic majority. In 1996, domestic violence offenders were added to the list of those barred from buying guns. However, a 1999 effort to close the gun show loophole on background checks after the Columbine school shootings was unsuccessful.

The NRA worked closely with Dingell, a gun rights proponent and senior House member, in crafting the new bill. The NRA insisted it was not gun control legislation because it does nothing to restrict legal rights to buy guns.

The NRA has supported the NICS since its inception in 1993, said Wayne LaPierre, the organization's executive vice president. “We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them.”

The NRA did win concessions.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

That wasn't enough for the Gun Owners of America, which said on its Web page that it was the only national pro-gun organization to oppose the McCarthy bill. "There are some seemingly pro-gun congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech," it said.

On the other side, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group supported the legislation, noting that the Virginia Tech shootings "tragically demonstrated the gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed."

He said he hoped Congress and the gun lobby would go a step further and extend background checks to all gun sales, not just those by licensed dealers covered by current law
 

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26939
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2009, 05:35:02 AM »
As I've been saying for years the NRA is not the friend of gun owners most seem to think they are. Pretty much ALL antigun legislation passed for the last 20+ years has been with support from the NRA.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline torpedoman

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2574
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 09:06:08 AM »
The NRA cares a lot more about the well being of the NRA than it does about your gun rights. Their political scare tactics to raise money for them is getting tiresome. If someone mentions gun control in the rest room it is in a flyer the next week in your mailbox saying they need millions to stop it from happening how many of you have got a flyer to stop hr45 that has not and will not get out of committe and the NRA knows that. The second admendment foundation and gun owners of america actually have cases in court suing state and local governments while the NRA will wait til it is a supreme court issue then sign on and claim it was their idea all along.
the nation that forgets it defenders will itself be forgotten

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 09:25:18 AM »
The NRA cares a lot more about the well being of the NRA than it does about your gun rights. Their political scare tactics to raise money for them is getting tiresome. If someone mentions gun control in the rest room it is in a flyer the next week in your mailbox saying they need millions to stop it from happening how many of you have got a flyer to stop hr45 that has not and will not get out of committe and the NRA knows that. The second admendment foundation and gun owners of america actually have cases in court suing state and local governments while the NRA will wait til it is a supreme court issue then sign on and claim it was their idea all along.
I stop being a member years ago because of them alway wanted money. Sometimes I would get three letters a week asking for money.  There members here that think the nra is holy.

Offline DDZ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2009, 09:48:34 AM »
I guess I kind of suspected this about the NRA, but never wanted to believe it. I guess they are just like any other organization that gets to big. They just care about how much money they can bring in, and forget about the people that are giving them money.
Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.    Wm. Penn

Offline coyotejoe

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2937
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2009, 06:03:24 AM »
My beef with the NRA is also their fund raising operations. Like most other non-profits they employ a fund raising organization and most of the funds raised are eaten up by that organization. I am a member and my membership dues are about all the support I can afford to give them but I'm sure that does not even cover the cost of all the mailings they send out. ::)
The story of David & Goliath only demonstrates the superiority of ballistic projectiles over hand weapons, poor old Goliath never had a chance.

Offline alsaqr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2009, 07:56:59 AM »
Yep, complain about the NRA.  Without the NRA no one on this thread would be able to own a gun.   

Offline INresponse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2009, 08:35:28 AM »
Just another thought to consider ......

I know many people feel that anyone not locked in prison, jail or a mental hospital should have the right to own a firearm.  I know that I fully support the right of any law abiding citizen to own a firearm, and as a Police Officer I repeat that many times a day.  (here it comes)  But, I do not believe that any convicited felon, whether that person served their time in prison, on parole, or on probation, should be allowed to own or possess a firearm.  My reason for this is that very few people arrested for felony offenses actually plead guilty to felony offenses or go to trial and get convicted for felony offenses.  In short, only the badest of the bad gain the convicted felon status.  At least that is what I see in this part of the country.

Lets say you live on a street with 6 houses.  You live in the middle of the street, you have people living in the other houses convicted of murder, rape, drug manufacturing and sales, auto theft/car jacking, and armed robbery.  They all did their time for their convictions but did not get out early for good behavior because they were not good even in prison.  Are you all comfortable with each and everyone one of these people owning firearms?   As much as I support the 2nd ammendment I can not say that I support any of these scum bags owning any type of firearm.  Sorry, don't take it personal, just my opinion.

Also, I have had many opportunities to deal first hand with mentally unstable people.  I am not talking about someone who is slow or has learning problems, I am talking about people who hear the devil tell them to kill or people who have fried their brains on Meth or other drugs and are so paranoid or out of touch that they are as scary as Freddy Krueger and Nancy Pelosi combined.  These people, again, have no right being any where near a firearm.

If these are the people the background checks protect us from I think this is not a bad thing.  Please don't hate me for this opinion, I respect your opinion that anyone had the right and it should not be infringed.  I wish that people convicted of violent felonies, anything from car theft or robbery on up to mass murder, especially the ones caught on video or witnessed by a bus load of Nuns and a few Boy Scouts, could be convicted and executed immediately, but our spineless society and court system wont allow that so we are stuck with these people walking the street and living in our neighborhoods.  I, again, do not want them to own guns, I hope you can understand this.
Police Officers support the 2nd Amendment!
-Retired-

Offline coyotejoe

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2937
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2009, 06:09:53 AM »
Yep, complain about the NRA.  Without the NRA no one on this thread would be able to own a gun.   

Not the NRA, the voters who support the NRA. For eight years we had an administration, a congress and a supreme court friendly to gun owners. That was the time for the NRA to go on the offensive with proactive legislation and push for positive guarantees of our firearms rights. The NRA sat on its' thumb and let the opportunity pass so now we are back on the defensive with our backs to the wall. Thank you NRA.
The story of David & Goliath only demonstrates the superiority of ballistic projectiles over hand weapons, poor old Goliath never had a chance.

Offline Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2009, 11:03:43 AM »
Yep, complain about the NRA.  Without the NRA no one on this thread would be able to own a gun.   

Not the NRA, the voters who support the NRA. For eight years we had an administration, a congress and a supreme court friendly to gun owners. That was the time for the NRA to go on the offensive with proactive legislation and push for positive guarantees of our firearms rights. The NRA sat on its' thumb and let the opportunity pass so now we are back on the defensive with our backs to the wall. Thank you NRA.
THat is a crock of bs.
Those same voters did nothing about the Rep. who did a good job of imitating big spending Dem.

Any damned fool can point fingers and whine, the Dem. party lives off of it.

Offline Oldshooter

  • GBO subscriber and supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6426
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2009, 11:47:54 AM »
Let me get this right, The NRA is against the gun owners of the USA! Hmmmm! Well then i guess we should go to the Democratic party head and ask for his help! Give me a break fellas seems every time I see a thread like this here. I see the same old poppy cock! Looks like some are just looking for an excuse to not help out! Then of course you have the conspiracy theorist that think everyone is out to get em!


I delete about every email I get from the NRA collectors, and I don't take the phone calls with the BS fear mongering to collect more money. I do support the NRA, and renew everytime I'm close to expiration. But as for the NRA being in cahoots with the anti guners that's just BS. If you don't wanna give nothing then don't.  Who in heck is watching the scoundrels "US"? We cant even come together here on what rifle to shoot.   

Sure they may have worked to get something in the works to stop wacko's from getting guns but better to work with them than for them to ban the sale to everyone. I dont like any gun legislation but there has to be some restrictions so kids cant buy em, or idiots.  I say step back and do your own research and find out what is up,and raise Cain if you don't like it, not just whine on here. of course if we all did that then there would be no need for the NRA, or their lawyers or the time they spend researching and watch-dogging the lefties, but maybe that is all a scam to get my attention so they can sell me out!
I'll bet if you opened your NRA mail this would not have been a surprise to you! Did you think that that wacko was gonna kill a bunch of college kids and the left wasn't gonna do any thing about it.  dream on!
“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2009, 12:21:39 PM »
INresponse, thank you for your service to our communities!

While I sympathize with the basis of your argument, I have to disagree philosophically. The right to bear arms was never based in pragmatism, in fact it was never granted by our government - it was acknowledged as pre-existent, an inherent aspect of society stemming from natural law. That we have more advanced technology today does not change the philosophical premise; Nor does the character of the person carrying the gun, as it is not based on their capacity or intent.

We should never use pragmatism as the justification of law because the final result is always dead humans are easier to manage. My disappointment with the NRA is that they gave up the high ground in the argument, and are instead attempting to wage a rational, pragmatic justification of gun ownership, which is the oppositions back yard.
held fast

Offline Oldshooter

  • GBO subscriber and supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6426
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2009, 12:48:13 PM »
TM. I'm not so sure they gave up the high ground. It may be that they did what they could do to stem the knee jerk reaction to the masacre!

Your not gonna get me to argue the 2nd amendment, I agree totally with what it says but if the NRA does not negotiate a deal then what happens. Are we saying that making a minimum age requirement is giving up the high ground?

Quote
We should never use pragmatism as the justification of law because the final result is always dead humans are easier to manage.

Please explain.
“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Offline mirage1988

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2009, 01:35:08 PM »


Lets say you live on a street with 6 houses.  You live in the middle of the street, you have people living in the other houses convicted of murder, rape, drug manufacturing and sales, auto theft/car jacking, and armed robbery.  They all did their time for their convictions but did not get out early for good behavior because they were not good even in prison.  Are you all comfortable with each and everyone one of these people owning firearms?   As much as I support the 2nd ammendment I can not say that I support any of these scum bags owning any type of firearm.  Sorry, don't take it personal, just my opinion.



So are there not laws on the books about murder, rape, drug manufacturing and sales, auto theft/car jacking, and armed robbery?
 Laws didn't stop them from committing those crimes, so how will laws stop them from getting a gun?

Laws only stop LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!

I am no more comfortable with felons having guns as I am with having felons live next door PERIOD.

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2009, 02:15:33 PM »
TM. I'm not so sure they gave up the high ground. It may be that they did what they could do to stem the knee jerk reaction to the masacre!

Your not gonna get me to argue the 2nd amendment, I agree totally with what it says but if the NRA does not negotiate a deal then what happens. Are we saying that making a minimum age requirement is giving up the high ground?

Quote
We should never use pragmatism as the justification of law because the final result is always dead humans are easier to manage.

Please explain.


Randy, I am NRA because they are doing something; I disagree with their current approach.

Pragmatism, utilitarianism, makes laws that are most useful to the lawmaker. Restricting firearms from felons is practical, but it won't stop at felons. You've just established that the law should only apply to certain persons, for exAmple felons because they are known to be dangerous. But what stops you or the next lawmAker from expanding the definition? That's what Russia, Germany, China have done starting with the premise that only the people that make sense to me should have guns.

Then only the people that make sense to me have the right to health care (UK, EU). Then only the people that are useful should have the right to live. The constitution is impractical by design - it protects liberty, not what is easy.


held fast

Offline skarke

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2009, 02:18:25 PM »
I support the NRA, and in fact, support the instant background check, as long as the checks aren't stored, and as long as we have the ability to trade personal firearms without notification to the govt.

Regarding the 2nd amendment and natural law, you are dead on.  Using standards set by the US supreme court regarding other "personal rights", speech, assembly, etc., individuals have an inalienable right to possess the minimum firepower necessary to defend oneself, and guarantee a govt of and by the people.

For instance, though you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater, free speech is otherwise a God breathed, inalienable right granted by existence, not govt.  In the same way, the right of gun ownership is balanced the same way that free speech is, where certain aspects of an otherwise inalienable right can be weighed against the risk to society of an individual exercising that right (the risk to society of M1 Abrams private ownership probably exceeds the individual's right and need to possess one).  Regardless, the balance must include the ability of a free militia to form in defense of liberty and against a tyrannical govt.

So, what does this all mean?  The minimum firepower, imho, is full autos and M209s, no kidding, for what it's worth, Dan
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.  Ronaldus Maximus

Offline Oldshooter

  • GBO subscriber and supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6426
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2009, 04:10:02 PM »
OK I am not saying that I like the NRA's decision, I am not in favor of any anti gun law period.  If anyone here has seen my post about boiling a frog then you know where I stand on gun control. It seems to me that this "deal" was to stop the INFIRM from easily getting weapons. I don't however know what was going on behind the scenes. Just as I dont like no gun zones/"moving target zones". I dont like the fact that "wacko's" who are mentally infirm can go down and get weapons as easily as anyone of us can! 

My point was and is, if the NRA is not to be trusted then where are we? I really dont believe that they take our dues and sell us down the road. Would anyone of us made that deal? Don't know, we also Don't know all the details. My Initial response after reading some of the previous posts was " here we go again" the conspiracy theorists will come out like goblins on a full moon!  I think those guys (NRA staff) know that we must police ourselves, to stop the random violence or we will have no legitimate arguement when they come at us with additional knee jerk responses.

This has nothing to do with if I think felons can get guns anyway! We all know the answer to that, of course they can! It seems to me that if  some measure to stop the infirm from getting them then maybe "WE" the responsible gun owners look responsible.

Now tell me about the slippery slope and how we give up the fight when we compromise. Do we compromise/ have we compromised in the past?  Heck you know we have. Every law on the books is a compromise since we started with but one the second amendment!
“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Offline INresponse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2009, 02:12:45 PM »
INresponse, thank you for your service to our communities!

While I sympathize with the basis of your argument, I have to disagree philosophically. The right to bear arms was never based in pragmatism, in fact it was never granted by our government - it was acknowledged as pre-existent, an inherent aspect of society stemming from natural law. That we have more advanced technology today does not change the philosophical premise; Nor does the character of the person carrying the gun, as it is not based on their capacity or intent.

We should never use pragmatism as the justification of law because the final result is always dead humans are easier to manage. My disappointment with the NRA is that they gave up the high ground in the argument, and are instead attempting to wage a rational, pragmatic justification of gun ownership, which is the oppositions back yard.

But, prior to the Constitution, and prior to the Bill Of Rights, they actually hung or shot or otherwise killed the scum so there were not many repeat offenders, after they were caught, tried and convicted that is.  With our pathetic justice system the scum keep getting released back to the streets and learn there is little penalty if they get caught again.  As I mentioned before, I respect your opinion, but I believe my point is valid at this date and time.
Police Officers support the 2nd Amendment!
-Retired-

Offline INresponse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2009, 02:18:28 PM »


Lets say you live on a street with 6 houses.  You live in the middle of the street, you have people living in the other houses convicted of murder, rape, drug manufacturing and sales, auto theft/car jacking, and armed robbery.  They all did their time for their convictions but did not get out early for good behavior because they were not good even in prison.  Are you all comfortable with each and everyone one of these people owning firearms?   As much as I support the 2nd ammendment I can not say that I support any of these scum bags owning any type of firearm.  Sorry, don't take it personal, just my opinion.



So are there not laws on the books about murder, rape, drug manufacturing and sales, auto theft/car jacking, and armed robbery?
 Laws didn't stop them from committing those crimes, so how will laws stop them from getting a gun?

Laws only stop LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!

I am no more comfortable with felons having guns as I am with having felons live next door PERIOD.

Laws don't stop them from commiting the crimes in the first place, and laws may not stop them from getting a gun, but the intention is to make it a bit more difficult for the scum to do so. 

I would prefer that the justice system execute the scum immediately and not give them the chance to repeat their crimes making your or me, or our families, a victim.  But that wont happen.  Should we argue the gun laws preventing sales of guns to felons or allow them to buy guns and ammo to use against us?

The way I see it, the laws preventing felons from owning guns should only be opposed by felons.
Police Officers support the 2nd Amendment!
-Retired-

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2009, 02:38:28 PM »
It all works great when the good guys define the terms "infirm" "scumbag" and "felon." what happens when good people wind up on watch lists? That'll never happen right? Oh wait, just did.

I've been accused of being mentally infirm for believing in God. Am I disqualified for gun ownership?

Stop thinking pragmatically folks. Once you let government make determination it is only a matter of oh say 200 years before the definitions of words change and not in your favor.

INresponse, so let's fix the injustice system.
held fast

Offline mechanic

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5112
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2009, 02:45:06 PM »
Just read that over in the Netherlands a crazy guy bent on killing the royal family mowed down a bunch of people with an automobile, killing five.  Should we prevent crazys from driving?  What would make a person too crazy to drive?  Would getting a DUI do it?  Apparently not.  Would multiple speeding infractions do it?  Not necessarily.  But one blip on the radar can void your right to own a gun. 

The reason is, its not about controlling crazy people, or preventing killing.  Its about taking away your right to own a gun.
Molon Labe, (King Leonidas of the Spartan Army)

Offline coyotejoe

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2937
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2009, 04:30:56 AM »
Well lots of people are loosing their gun rights over a domestic violence rap.  Make no mistake, domestic violence is a serious problem and should be treated as such but in many areas today there has been an over reaction. It is standard policy that if cops are called on a domestic dispute they are required to take someone away. Prosecutors are also under pressure to prosecute any arrest. So even though the cops can clearly see that there has been no actual violence, just a noisy argument, they still must make an arrest and the arrested party, nearly always the male, must be prosecuted.  Most people can't afford bail, lawyers, time off work to fight it so they take the deal. Plead guilty, be released on own recognisance, pay a fine and forget it. Forget it except they can never again own a firearm.
The story of David & Goliath only demonstrates the superiority of ballistic projectiles over hand weapons, poor old Goliath never had a chance.

Offline INresponse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #22 on: May 03, 2009, 06:22:55 PM »
Well lots of people are loosing their gun rights over a domestic violence rap. 
*** And many cops think the loss of rights over a misedmeanor is horse hooey!  In Nevada a 3rd 'conviction' for Domestic is a felony, but the first 2 are misdemeanor and should not violate your 2nd Ammendment rights.***

Make no mistake, domestic violence is a serious problem and should be treated as such but in many areas today there has been an over reaction. It is standard policy that if cops are called on a domestic dispute they are required to take someone away. Prosecutors are also under pressure to prosecute any arrest.
***When our hands are tied, and we have to make the arrest, our attorneys are taking steps to sidetrack the lame cases and avoid the domestic charge/conviction.  As much as we hate it, there are times when the actions require an arrest but the situation did not.  We hate it but Nevada law says we make the arrest or we get arrested for not doing so.***

So even though the cops can clearly see that there has been no actual violence, just a noisy argument, they still must make an arrest and the arrested party, nearly always the male, must be prosecuted. 
***Fortunately in Nevada loud arguments do not require an arrest, only an actualy battery of some sort.  And, we arrest plenty women, but the law goes both ways and if he calls her something and she slaps him we have no choice.  And, with those lame arrests the attorneys again are looking at side tracking the cases if the situation is appropriate.***

Most people can't afford bail, lawyers, time off work to fight it so they take the deal. Plead guilty, be released on own recognisance, pay a fine and forget it. Forget it except they can never again own a firearm.
***The courts require the defendant to verbally admit they understand the law that will prevent them from owning a firearm, and they have to sign a paper saying they understand, before they can plead guilty to the charge.  At least here they have several reminders that this wont be just a slap on the hand for fessing up.  I still think it is crap, and most of the Officers and attorneys around here think it is crap, but until someone somewhere appeals this and takes it to the Supreme Court, and hopefully wins, we are stuck with it.  I still think it is crap.***

I would rather see the justice system punish people and execute the bad guys. (murder, rape, robbery, battery with a deady weapon, etc)  But with the help of the media we have to be kinder and gentler and rehabilitate.  Personally I think the rehabilitation should come at the end of a short rope from a tall branch.
Police Officers support the 2nd Amendment!
-Retired-

Offline coyotejoe

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2937
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2009, 06:08:32 AM »
"But the first two are misdemeanor and should not violate your 2nd amendment rights"

 Would that it were  so but it isn't. A domestic violence misdemeanor will end your right to own firearms for life, the same as any felony conviction. I'm glad to hear the policy in Nevada is more sensible but it is federal law which rules and under federal law a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or guilty plea carries the same stigma as does a felony conviction.
The story of David & Goliath only demonstrates the superiority of ballistic projectiles over hand weapons, poor old Goliath never had a chance.

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: IS THIS TRUE ABOUT NRA.
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2009, 07:16:42 AM »
Well lots of people are loosing their gun rights over a domestic violence rap.  Make no mistake, domestic violence is a serious problem and should be treated as such but in many areas today there has been an over reaction. It is standard policy that if cops are called on a domestic dispute they are required to take someone away. Prosecutors are also under pressure to prosecute any arrest. So even though the cops can clearly see that there has been no actual violence, just a noisy argument, they still must make an arrest and the arrested party, nearly always the male, must be prosecuted.  Most people can't afford bail, lawyers, time off work to fight it so they take the deal. Plead guilty, be released on own recognisance, pay a fine and forget it. Forget it except they can never again own a firearm.

In Hawaii, if authorities are called to investigate domestic violence, they remove all firearms from the home whether or not an arrest is made. Often that translates into a weapons charge, even if there's no other charge. Even if it is determined later that no laws were broken, somebody is still going through a lot of "training" and still has to file additional paperwork (time and $) to have their firearms returned to them. We had a spouse call the police on a bogus charge just to put her husband through the wringer with his guns, after she heard what happens from a neighbor.

Hawaii takes state sovereignty in the other direction.
held fast