Re: 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: 18:22:21 11/13/02 Wed
Author: Marv
Subject: Re: To Whom it may
In reply to: Pot 's message, "Re: To Whom it may" on 16:53:29 11/13/02 Wed

>>> > > 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?
>
>
>Ok Marv, gol dang it!!! This here article is pushing
>some bullshit to the edge. First off, why not print
>the proposed legislation(or a link to it) so we can
>see the language. If I'm not mistaken, the deal about
>"a shouting match with a family member" is pure
>horseshit!! In most all jurisdictions that I know
>about, the person must have been adjudged as being
>guilty of "domestic violence" for it to affect his/her
>right to own or carry a weapon. A shouting match
>doesn't come close to meeting the definition of
>domestic violence in any jurisdiction that I know of.
>
> Likewise, "an overnight stay in the hospital"
>doesn't disqualify a person from owning or carrying a
>weapon in any jurisdiction with which I'm familiar.
>Keep in mind that I am very much against any person
>owning or being authorized to carry a weapon who has
>been diagnosed as having a mental illness that
>requires continuing therapy of any kind.
>
> Being a licensed, concealed carry person, owner of
>several long guns, mostly unfired collector types,
>non-member of NRA and not a hunter, I cherish my
>rights to own and carry concealed weapons when or if I
>choose. I'm simply questioning the author's honesty
>in the article you pasted.
> > I don't know Pot, try dot gov us house for the bill. All I know is that there is going to be a scuffle if Schumer comes to my house,. I don't have a permit, but I do, by God, have tool,of various calibers,within reach 90% of the time. If I ever peacefully surrender my hand cannons etc, Rest assured that I have access to more. Cancer I can accept, but disarmenment will take some convincing. You gbuumint types have a nice day now, Marv

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

Replies:

I don't know, Pot -- N5RDC, 22:47:12 11/14/02 Thu