Re: HR-648 A "Gun Control" bill -- The Chimneyville Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:57:15 02/17/03 Mon
Author: Marv
Subject: Re: HR-648 A "Gun Control" bill
In reply to: Pot 's message, "Re: HR-648 A "Gun Control" bill" on 15:45:13 02/17/03 Mon

>>> > > At the risk of being flamed, as usual, for a cut
>>and paste job, I thought this story was worth the
>>effort.. Just in case someone missed it in their
>>surfin' activities. For those astute surfers in the
>>audience, I apologize... sort of. Marv
>>
>>Reprinted from NewsMax.com
>>
>>Reasonable Gun Control – Support H.R. 648
>>Geoff Metcalf
>>Monday, Feb. 17, 2003
>>Who would have thunk it? A congressional bill has been
>>introduced to defend your Second Amendment rights that
>>is reasonable and makes sense. Which probably means
>>Schumer/Boxer/Feinstein/Clinton will go ballistic
>>vilifying it.
>>
>>H.R. 648 was recently introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson,
>>R-S.C., "To protect the right to obtain firearms for
>>security, and to use firearms in defense of self,
>>family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of
>>such right."
>>
>>I have long argued that law-abiding citizens should be
>>armed, trained and prepared.
>>
>>H.R. 648 not only reaffirms many of my arguments but
>>also legislates reason. By congressional standards the
>>bill is startlingly straightforward.
>>
>>It states: "A person not prohibited from receiving a
>>firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States
>>Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for
>>security, and to use firearms in defense of self or
>>family against a reasonably perceived threat of
>>imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily
>>injury; in defense of self or family in the course of
>>the commission by another person of a violent felony
>>against the person or a member of the person's family;
>>and in defense of the person's home in the course of
>>the commission of a felony by another person."
>>
>>Not bad.
>>
>>Even better, it provides a citizen recourse if refused
>>"permission" to purchase or own a weapon: "A person
>>whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any
>>manner may bring an action in any United States
>>district court against the United States, any State,
>>or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such
>>other relief as the court deems appropriate."
>>
>>However, the "Findings" section (remarkably) includes
>>some surprising statistics. These are facts most
>>Second Amendment supporters already know, but it is
>>significant to see them included in an actual
>>congressional bill as supporting documentation:
>>
>>(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable
>>for failing to protect, individual citizens, as
>>evidenced by the following:
>>(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police
>>do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only
>>the public in general.
>>
>>(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told
>>Florida legislators that police responded to only
>>200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County
>>authorities.
>>
>>(C) The United States Department of Justice found
>>that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence
>>for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
>>
>>
>>(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend
>>themselves, as evidenced by the following:
>>
>>(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the
>>United States use a gun to defend themselves against
>>criminals more than 6,500 people a day. In other
>>words, each year, firearms are used 60 times more
>>often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to
>>take lives.
>>(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than
>>192,000 are by women defending themselves against
>>sexual abuse.
>>
>>(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to
>>defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely
>>brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off
>>their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does
>>a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
>>
>>
>>(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for
>>their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for
>>brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. This
>>is NUTS.
>>(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution
>>to police officers who use firearms in the line of
>>duty (creating a privileged class). Likewise,
>>law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect
>>themselves, their families, and their homes against
>>violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by
>>the violent felons who sought to victimize them. This
>>should be a no-brainer.
>>
>>H.R. 648 is an artfully crafted bill that even
>>moderates in Congress should be able to embrace.
>>Opponents will find themselves on thin partisan ice.
>>Some knuckle draggers are going to gripe, Hey, that
>>ain t good enough! Well, it is a damn sight better
>>that what we have now. Please remember the gun-grabber
>>crowd hasn t broadened their unconstitutional anti-gun
>>base all at once. They have been fighting (and
>>winning) a war of incrementalism.
>>
>>Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, said in
>>1976, "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is
>>necessarily given the political realities very modest.
>>Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is
>>going to take time.
>>(http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/paranoid_20000315.html)
>>
>>We need to support H.R. 648. Call, write and demand
>>that your representative vote for it. This bill is not
>>politics as usual. It is important. It is critical.
>>And in this era of heightened threat, it is
>>desperately needed.
>>
>>If you are not part of the solution (to get this bill
>>into law), then you become part of the problem.
>
>
>Piss on dem congressional dickheads!! We can all just
>move to Texas. The Texas gun laws are already better
>than this bill.
> > > CRAAAP! I ain't moving nowhere, much less to Texas. I have already moved about 500,000 miles in my life. I'm tired of packing U-Hauls. I'll just stay here and pack my .357. If I make daylight through some thug, I'll take the local consequences. I just thought this bill might help them poor suckers that really NEED it. You know, like the guy up north about a month ago shot an intruder, threatening him and his young son, in his apartment... He's being prosecuted...and he legally owned the gun. Ya'll go ahead and move to Texas... I'll stay here and email my Congressional Dickhead, although I think he already knows that if he doesn't support it...(if ANY of his constituents care or hear about it) his ass is grass... (Bennie Thompson has a special exemption although I can't figure out why, considering the crime statistics) I realize fooking with da gubbimint is basically useless but it keeps me off the streets at night. Marv

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: HR-648 A "Gun Control" bill -- Marv P.S. BTW, 17:05:04 02/17/03 Mon
- Re: HR-648 A "Gun Control" bill -- Pot, 05:04:48 02/18/03 Tue