To Whom it may -- 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: 15:57:43 11/13/02 Wed
Author: Marv
Subject: To Whom it may

> > > I hate to be guilty of cutting and pasting again, but I don't want to have to explain all this rigamarole...So.. Does anyone else besides me believe that this is a pack of socialistic shit and another nail in the coffin of the states having ANY rights or privacy. I have a pix of Possum Schumer firing an UZI. According to him, we don't need guns, but he does. And, as for Mrs. whatshername, Perhaps her husband and others would still be alive if there had been anyone on that subway with a gun besides the criminal that shot them. But, "gun control" had taken care of that answer in advance, so apparently she now thinks that more decent citizens need disarming. I nominate her for membership in "shitheads unanimous". Marv The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace
Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy of New York.

Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York,
Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the
Senate (S. 2826).

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of
sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI
for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would
include any state record relevant to the question of whether a
person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the
FBI could also require that a state forward ALL of its employment
and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens.
It could require that states forward information concerning drug
diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in
order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any
controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions
of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were
guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might
remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed
in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even
yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer
own a firearm for self-defense.

But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the
states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does
not access all of these records when screening the background of
someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. The
McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of
decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one
slight offense committed in their past.

The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3
million more Americans who have spent time in mental health
facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime
than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those
with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad"
guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns.
Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many
restrictions there are.

This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep
pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more
Americans to legally own guns! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership
for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another
family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for
emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for
depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list?
People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind
altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.?

H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will
only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to
invading the privacy of all Americans.

A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in
England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any
industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun
control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the
wrong hands?

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

Replies:

Re: To Whom it may -- Pot, 16:53:29 11/13/02 Wed
- Re: To Whom it may -- Marv, 18:22:21 11/13/02 Wed
- I don't know, Pot -- N5RDC, 22:47:12 11/14/02 Thu