Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
For anyone who is interested, Sen. Johnny Isakson from Ga. supports the Veterans Disarmament Bill now before the Judiciary Commitee. Here is the letter I revieved from him:

Thank you for contacting me regading H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. I appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to respond.



Tragic events such as the killings in Virginia cause some to call for stricter gun laws or even a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I support responsible gun laws and I support the Second Amendment. Restrictions alone cannot stop a premeditated act such as the one committed by Cho Seung-Hui. In this particular case, a combination of security procedures, rapid response and notification could have reduced the loss of life, and better mental health intervention might have saved everyone from this horrible tragedy. It is important for all of us engaged in public policy to evaluate all of these areas and improve both laws and policies.



As you may know, H.R. 2640 passed the House on June 13, 2007, and is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I will continue to carefully monitor this legislation and the effects it could have on gun owners.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.






Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

There is no such thing as 'Responsible Gun Control", any more than "Responsible Vote Control", or "Responsible Speech Control".


I think maybe it's time we get a new Senator.

Semper Fi!
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
58,637 Posts
the NRA supports the legislation.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
Lots of info and posts on this and I suggest you look up the facts, NOT GOA MISINFORMATION and not the stupid gun grabber claims that they've finally won one. Both are lying, the GOA because of their competition with the NRA, which wrote most of the bill, and the gun grabbers because their 10 year losing streak is costing them support from the anti-gun lobby.

HR 2640 has ZERO new gun restrictions.

HR 2640 sets up a requirement that determinations of mental incompetence be properly and legally ajudicated before being reported to NICS, and sets up a system for getting those improperly put on NICS to get off it. Right now if some official @#$% claims you're a nut, sends in your name, you're forever banned from gun ownership, even if you prove they're wrong. HR 2640 corrects this, prevents it from happening in the future.

The Clinton Administration declared thousands of disabled vets incompetent to own guns because they got into money problems and the VA took over their finances. And even if they got straightened out they cannot, today, under the current Brady law, get their gun rights back. HR 2640 doesn't "disarm" vets. it gives them the opportunity to get their rights back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
This was the missing piece of information from the old boards on the same topic.

This is why my boy wasn't part of the list.

He received treatment and compensation for PTSD but was not on Clinton's list.

He has owned a gun shop since the late 1990's and buys and sells firearms all of the time.

He never had financial problems and has a good family support base if he ever did.

I feel bad for those who do not have a family or base of friends they can rely on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Brain-washed

Lots of info and posts on this and I suggest you look up the facts, NOT GOA MISINFORMATION and not the stupid gun grabber claims that they've finally won one. Both are lying, the GOA because of their competition with the NRA, which wrote most of the bill, and the gun grabbers because their 10 year losing streak is costing them support from the anti-gun lobby.

HR 2640 has ZERO new gun restrictions.

HR 2640 sets up a requirement that determinations of mental incompetence be properly and legally ajudicated before being reported to NICS, and sets up a system for getting those improperly put on NICS to get off it. Right now if some official @#$% claims you're a nut, sends in your name, you're forever banned from gun ownership, even if you prove they're wrong. HR 2640 corrects this, prevents it from happening in the future.

The Clinton Administration declared thousands of disabled vets incompetent to own guns because they got into money problems and the VA took over their finances. And even if they got straightened out they cannot, today, under the current Brady law, get their gun rights back. HR 2640 doesn't "disarm" vets. it gives them the opportunity to get their rights back.
You obviously haven't read, or do not understand the bill. Any minor official, without any judicial oversight can cause you to be ineligable, any psychiatrist, school counselor, doctor, VA clerk,....anybody. And there is already a program to get your rights restored....but it is purposely not funded. And you think this will be any different? Get real! And on top of all, it's irrelevant, because any gun legislation is illegal and constitutes an infringement of the 2nd Ammendment. There is NO SUCH THING AS REASONABLE GUN CONTROL! PERIOD.

And I need to tell you something about your NRA, GOA and all these other phoney-baloney 'lobby' organizations. They operate on the principle of "Never give a sucker an even break". Here's how it works: You join and give them money to fight the issue. Next, you get e-mails warning of an impending catastrophic legislation that is being introduced...and they need more money to fight it. So you send them more money, and maybe the Bill doesn't pass...THIS TIME! They declare a 'victory'. Next session, the same bill comes up again, and of course, they need more money to fight it. After about three or four rounds of this, the bill passes, and another 'emergency' bill comes up next session, and the cycle starts all over. You (and I don't mean you, personally, just figuratively) are the sucker! Think about it: Why is it that a case involving the National Anthem, or Prayer in School gets right to the Supreme Court, yet no 2nd Ammendment cases that would decide the issue once and for all, ever get to SCOTUS? How many gun laws have any of these 'lobby groups' had removed?....NONE WHATSOEVER! Not one single gun law has ever been repealed by the actions of any of these Con-Job Organizations. All they've ever done is take your money. Most are probably working with the anti-gun nuts to prolong the problems and increase the money take (just my speculation).

Our government is going to disarm the people, legally or otherwise, unless someone takes affirmative action, soon. And it's not going to be the NRA or GOA or the Fairy Godmother. It'll have to be the American people, operating together, with their heads screwed on tight! So far, the only one I've seen lately that matches that description is Dr. Ron Paul. And he will either be discredited before the election, or somehow removed soon after, because the Powers That Be will not accept power returning to the rightful owners...WE, THE PEOPLE.

WAKE UP AMERICA. YOU' RE BEING PLAYED LIKE A $2.00 FIDDLE!
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
You obviously haven't read, or do not understand the bill. Any minor official, without any judicial oversight can cause you to be ineligable, any psychiatrist, school counselor, doctor, VA clerk,....anybody. And there is already a program to get your rights restored....but it is purposely not funded.
The first 2 sentences are false.

And the bill REQUIRES funding of the review program or restitution of rights is automatic.

The rest of your diatribe has no rational content.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Actually, there is one part of the Senator's letter that would bug the Aitch Eee Dubbel-Ell out of me if he represented my state - the part where he said repeal of the Second Amendment was justified. THAT my friends, IMO un-fits him for the office he holds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Somebody finally got it!

That's what I'm trying to tell everyone. All that other garbage means nothing. They can change that when ever they want. I'm telling you their true intentions. The record bears me out.

Take this, for example, a letter I recieved from Sen Isakson:




Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic surveillance practices. I am glad to hear your thoughts on the matter and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.



On August 5, 2007, S.1927, the Protect America Act of 2007 became public law after being passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The measure makes a number of additions and modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and will improve the ability of our Intelligence agencies to protect the country.



I wholeheartedly believe that the domestic surveillance program authorized by President Bush is both within the confines of his presidential authority and is a vital component of our national security. I am a strong supporter of the right to privacy afforded to every American, but I also believe that if a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist is communicating in the United States, our President must have the ability to authorize the monitoring of those conversations. It would be irresponsible of us to keep the President from using the tools necessary to fight the War on Terror.



Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will not hesitate to call on me in the future if I can be of assistance to you. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.


Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

I case you missed it, he is saying point blank that he believes you have a right to privacy unless they decide you don't. Our government is out of control!

This started out as 'Foreign Intellegence Survellance', now it is 'Domestic Survellance', which means spying on U.S. citzens without judicial oversight. Say it with me again, class...DOMESTIC SURVELLANCE! All they have to do is say you are 'suspected' of being indirectly involved in terrorism, and they can spy on you. Then they can imprison you without a warrant or charges, no attorney or phone calls, and keep you indefinintly. Later, after they run out of terrorism excuses, they will say "We can do this for the War on Drugs as well, because that's just another form of terrorism, and we can already do it under S. 1927".

And who is to say what they are really using this information for? Do you think they would tell you if they spied on you to see how you'd vote? Or what civic organizations you belonged to? There is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, and it is even illegal for the library or anyone else to tell you that the feds have been asking about you.

Here's another example: The records of background checks under the Brady laws were originally not going to be kept, but it wasn't 6 months after the law went into effect that the Feds decided now, they would be kept 6 months, then later, they are kept for an indefinite time. This allows them to compile lists of people trying to buy firearms....A REGISTRATION.

Here's another one: The list of people who were not allowed to exercise their 2nd Ammendment rights was origianlly just former felons without a pardon. Then it was expanded to former felons, and 'certain misdemeoners'. Then it was expanded to felons, 'certain misdemeoners', and anyone who has had a protection order on them, regardless of whether there was any conviction for a crime, then it was expanded under Clinton to include several thousand veterans who had done nothing wrong at all, and now they are trying to expand it to anyone that any petty beauricrat deems ineligable, for whatever reason, regardless of a lack of criminal history. This includes children with ADD, who will be banned from firearms for life, anyone who has been seen for depression, anyone who has had counseling, etc..... And for those who say "It won't happen"....show me one instance where this HAS NOT been the normal political progression!

And for those who say" But they have a method for getting your name off the list.", we already have one of those, but it was defunded so it can't be used by anyone. There is nothing to stop them from doing it again. And how much will it cost you to get your name off the list? What if it cost several thousands of dollars, lawyers and other things (like getting your Social Security benefits does much of the time). A working person may not be able to afford correcting a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place. So only people in a certain financial bracket should be able to exercise their 2nd Ammendment rights?

People better wake up quick, because this is real, genuine Big Brother, George Orwell stuff. The National ID is just around the corner. The sheep had better start growing some brains and pay attention to what's happening around them. Look at history for a judge. No benevolent government has ever had to spy on it's own people. Every government that has ever existed has become oppressive soon after disarming its people. And more people have been killed in all of history by their own governments, than by every criminal that has ever lived! Our Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, to be circumvented at will by the Supreme Court and your elected officials...all for your own good! AND YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGDE!

WAKE UP BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE, AMERICA!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
the NRA supports the legislation.
And this doesn't bother you?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57847

I think we shouldn't just give it a pass because a lobby group says its ok. We should examine it.

From the article:
The National Rifle Association has not expressed such a high level of concern yet. Wayne LaPierre, the group's executive vice president, has said the Virginia Tech killer absolutely should have been barred from buying a gun under federal laws that already exist.
So if federal laws already exist to bar someone that is mentally handicapped or disturbed WHY WOULD YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO CREATE A NEW LAW?? Why not just argue that the CURRENT LAW needs to be enforced???

Sounds too fishy to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
^Because other current laws prohibit medical institutions from reporting (without the consent of the individual) medical conditions to ANYONE. Unless you give them expressed consent to declare to the NICS that you are looney, then they can't. It was my understanding that the bill simply requires them to do so in case of mental adjudication.

After all, it's a question on the 4473. But as it stands now, unless you actually answer "yes" to the question (that you are in fact mental), there's no way the BATFE or NICS can investigate on their own.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
It's really pretty hard to get a legal ruling of mental incompetence, in contrast to the completely illegal Clinton VA rulings. The vast majority of those declared legally incompetent and committed are people incapable of testifying on their own behalf.

But thanks to modern anti-psychotic drugs there are exceptions that illustrate just how hard it is to get a ruling of mental incompetence. One was a woman in New York City who kept being arrested for defecating in public - her "residence" was a doorway in Manhattan Giuliani was mayor at the time and trying to clean up the city. She was totally insane and incoherent, but every time she was arrested she was given medical treatment, including the drugs that had been prescribed for her but she neglected to take. And then she became sane enough to testify and get out of a committment, and went back to the streets where she stopped taking the drugs and started pooping in public again.

If she could retain all her rights and freedom, Mauserboy, I'm sure you can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
And this doesn't bother you?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57847

I think we shouldn't just give it a pass because a lobby group says its ok. We should examine it.

From the article:

So if federal laws already exist to bar someone that is mentally handicapped or disturbed WHY WOULD YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO CREATE A NEW LAW?? Why not just argue that the CURRENT LAW needs to be enforced???

Sounds too fishy to me.

You are surprised the nra backs a gun ban?

I am always impressed how quickly the gun culture is to go along with 1 more ban, while publishing bumper stickers claiming 25,000 gun laws are enough.

Gun owners as a whole are not rational.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top