NRA Bows Down Again, 2nd Amend Loses
0
-
I just love apologist, we have coporate apologist, democratic apologist, dubya apologist, (hell I'm sure even hitler had some apologist) and now nra apologist. When will people wake up to the nra, quit them, and join the GOA. Probally never. Sigh. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy lives
I just love apologist, we have coporate apologist, democratic apologist, dubya apologist, (hell I'm sure even hitler had some apologist) and now nra apologist. When will people wake up to the nra, quit them, and join the GOA. Probally never. Sigh.
The GOA is a good organization, I get their alerts also, but they are just too small of an organization to get much done other than sending faxes. It works too, all the groups help.
But spending your time knocking one organization or another is a big waste of time in my opinion. Both organizations are pro-gun and have helped our gun rights battle. Lets support both organizations, join the one that is a better fit for your personal position.
We need unity not division. Those who choose to knock one pro-gun organization over another just invite a response! I assume that is your intent, you enjoy the constant arguement and do not seek a real solution to a major problem. Choose a big picture approach and you might encourage others to join a united front to stand up against the anti-gun crowd.
You enjoy posting on a gun forum, GB is one of the best, but how many here share your anti-NRA position. You are a fringe opinion among the gun supporters on this forum or any of the other major gun forums. 90+ % are NRA members and support that group so your rants are cute but totally meaningless and a total waste of your time.0 -
Were you talkin' to me ??
I said..."were you talkin' to ME ??
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Were you talkin' to me ??
I said..."were you talkin' to ME ??
Doug
You....are one of my favorite members! A good guy and personal friend!
I wondered where you were, hey I need some back up here! Did you spend all day in church??[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy lives
I just love apologist, we have coporate apologist, democratic apologist, dubya apologist, (hell I'm sure even hitler had some apologist) and now nra apologist. When will people wake up to the nra, quit them, and join the GOA. Probally never. Sigh.
The GOA is a good organization, I get their alerts also, but they are just too small of an organization to get much done other than sending faxes. It works too, all the groups help.
But spending your time knocking one organization or another is a big waste of time in my opinion. Both organizations are pro-gun and have helped our gun rights battle. Lets support both organizations, join the one that is a better fit for your personal position.
We need unity not division. Those who choose to knock one pro-gun organization over another just invite a response! I assume that is your intent, you enjoy the constant arguement and do not seek a real solution to a major problem. Choose a big picture approach and you might encourage others to join a united front to stand up against the anti-gun crowd.
You enjoy posting on a gun forum, GB is one of the best, but how many here share your anti-NRA position. You are a fringe opinion among the gun supporters on this forum or any of the other major gun forums. 90+ % are NRA members and support that group so your rants are cute but totally meaningless and a total waste of your time.
Its true, the GOA is a very samll organazation, that is to small to make much of a difference, just like its true the NRA supports gun control, and is all ways willing to bend over in the name of comporomise. Its also true, that if we were to tell the NRA to get bleened, and went the direction of the GOA, we'd all be better off. Not trying to pit on organazation against the other, just stateing the facts.0 -
sig232. Me thinks you protests too much! Which is probably why you attempt to deigrate those who disagree. The NRA is not doing its job and never really has. There is enough information out there that shows this. Much of it has been posted on GB forums. Maybe you missed reading it. Maybe some of those who posted the information will repost just for you.
Most gun owners I know do not speak very highly of the NRA. Many, like myself are NRA members. The NRA is either incompetent, derelict, or has a hidden agenda. The NRA talks big, but when the time comes they sell out and we loose more gun rights. But never gain any back and certainly never get any more. For starters go to the jfpo web site and read their letter to the NRA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
sig232. Me thinks you protests too much! Which is probably why you attempt to deigrate those who disagree. The NRA is not doing its job and never really has. There is enough information out there that shows this. Much of it has been posted on GB forums. Maybe you missed reading it. Maybe some of those who posted the information will repost just for you.
Most gun owners I know do not speak very highly of the NRA. Many, like myself are NRA members. The NRA is either incompetent, derelict, or has a hidden agenda. The NRA talks big, but when the time comes they sell out and we loose more gun rights. But never gain any back and certainly never get any more. For starters go to the jfpo web site and read their letter to the NRA.
I do have very strong feelings about the need to support all of the gun organizations that stand with us.
Your response makes me sad because I am beginning to understand that gun owners as a whole are very independent and not likely to stand up as a group, as one, to protest the loss of second amendment rights. Its not going to happen, I do agree.
I will not bring it up again and will just join the rant against why the NRA does not protect me personally, call me to see if my needs are being met and do my bidding! Yep its a crap organization and they do nothing for us, lets stop sending them our hard earned cash.0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
ADD is the medical term for bad parenting.
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT ONCE I HAVE A KID, I HAVE TO RAISE IT!! [:0][:0]
[:D]0 -
Quotes from, Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
A right is something one can exercise in private, without having to get anyone's permission first, and without even having to disclose to anyone that one is, or is not, exercising the right. A right, and what one does, or does not do with it, is one's business and no one else's business. A right is also 100% immune from all forms of prior restraint and infringement. Civil authority can legitimately, and Constitutionally, punish, after the fact, behavior that is an abuse of the right. Civil authority cannot, however, legitimately, and Constitutionally, impose prior restraints on the exercise of the right. Such prior restraints reduce a fundamental right to a privilege.
To permit is to control. To permit is to convert a fundamental right to a privilege
How one exercises a right becomes a legitimate concern to civil authority only when one's behavior regarding that right actually harms another. Neither civil authority, nor anyone else, has any legitimate basis to complain about the responsible, non-harmful exercise of any right. This includes otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely carry a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense without a CCW permit. The key is: what is the citizen's behavior, not whether he or she also carries a piece of government issued paper called a permit
Life is full of risks. Civil authority and citizens must be willing to take risks with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law. The alternative is Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law. The risks associated with Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law outweigh those associated with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law
Do you realize that when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it has the sole power to determine what is and is not Constitutional, and that it, and all government, is cloaked with immunity, that the Judiciary perverted Mankind's greatest achievement-the Bill of Rights-and made you an unwilling party to a one sided contract, a contract of adhesion
If you are inclined to support more victim disarmament laws, why? Why are you more comfortable with only criminals and cops having guns instead of law-abiding citizens also having guns? Why do you want to move the United States toward a police state? Do you realize that when citizens are disarmed and the streets are safe only for police and criminals, that is the classic definition of a police state? Where is the virtue in this: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a strangled, raped female and a long-gone rapist? Is this not more virtuous: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a criminal assailant prone, bleeding, with two bullet holes in his chest and a live, unharmed female
After September 11, are not all citizens now on the front lines? If so, why does civil authority inexplicably treat us as cattle or the enemy or suspects instead of as citizens?
Firearms are inanimate objects made of metal, wood and plastic. They are incapable of human thought or emotion. They cannot form the intent to commit an "assault". The only thing a loaded firearm can do without human intervention is . . . . What? Answer: Self-destruct via a mechanism called rust. Self-destruction is the opposite of commit an assault. Where is the hard, verifiable, objective proof that any firearm in the history of firearms has done any of the following: Formed the intent to commit an assault? Loaded itself? Selected a target? Aimed itself? Pulled its own trigger?
Burn this into your psyche: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject-and worse: a piss ant. Civil authority has to take a citizen seriously. Civil authority can ignore, flatten, incarcerate, and execute a piss ant. Which would you rather be: a citizen or a piss ant?
Burn this also into your psyche: A gun in the hand is better than a dispatcher on the phone or a cop in route.0 -
What ticks me off is the PTSD cases that will be turned over to the NICS system. I know a bunch of people who were diagnosed with PTSD which has many varying degrees of severity--many of whom will have absolutely no problems using or carrying a firearm safely and responsibly. They're all going to be painted with the broad brush stereotyping all of them as "nuts" or "whackos".
Secondly, there are a LOT of anti-gun shrinks out there. Heck, you practically have to be a liberal in order to buy into half the crap they buy into. Psychiatry is a THEORY-based science. That means that "truth" is fluid and they can categorize anyone any way they please and prevent as many people as possible with characteristics that will prevent them from owning guns.
I wrote a letter to my congressman. He's a staunch conservative but I'm afraid it isn't going to do any good. It sounds like support for this crap is overwhelming.0 -
I agree with the intent, but this law will keep those that really need help from seeking it for fear they will lose their right to own a firearm, or even buy one. I also fear what the gun bashers will try and add to this bill before it gets passed.
Now that the demoCRAPS are in charge they will try and get every Republican declared mentally incompetent.[;)]
Trinity +++0 -
This is a C&P from todays local paper.
This kind of supports what Idsman was saying.
Trinity +++
Army plans to hire more psychiatrists
PAULINE JELINEK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- Overwhelmed by the number of soldiers returning from war with mental problems, the Army is planning to hire at least 25 percent more psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.
A contract finalized this week but not yet announced calls for spending $33 million to add about 200 mental health professionals to help soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health needs, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
"As the war has gone on, PTSD and other psychological effects of war have increased," said Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general.
"The number of (mental health workers) that was adequate for a peacetime military is not adequate for a nation that's been at war," she said in an interview.
The new hiring, which she said could begin immediately, is part of a wider plan of action the Army has laid out to improve health care to wounded or ill veterans and their families. It also comes as the Defense Department completes a wider mental health study - the latest in a series over recent months that has found services for troops have been inadequate.
Ritchie said long and repeat deployments caused by extended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are causing more mental strain on troops. "At the time that the war began, I don't think anybody anticipated how long it would be going on," she said.
Surveys of troops in Iraq have shown that 15 percent to 20 percent of Army soldiers have signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress, which can cause flashbacks of traumatic combat experiences and other severe reactions.
About 35 percent of soldiers are seeking some kind of mental health treatment a year after returning home under a program that screens returning troops for physical and mental health.
The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Officials and military analysts have blamed ethics lapses partly on the strain of combat and insufficient training troops got before being sent to the battlefront.
Ritchie said the 200 new medical health workers will be added to more than 600 uniformed and civilian mental health professionals now working at three dozen Army medical centers and hospitals.
The Army also is planning a number of other improvements, such as streamlining bureaucracy that vets must go through to get care and adding more lawyers and other workers to help them and their families.
A report from a Defense Department task force released Thursday also found "current efforts fall significantly short" in providing help for troops.
"The psychological health needs of America's military service members, their families and their survivors pose a daunting and growing challenge to the Department of Defense," it said.
The task force was required by Congress under in 2006 law.
Also on Thursday, a Senate panel voted to expand brain screenings and counseling for wounded veterans of the Iraq war and to reduce red tape for service members moving from Pentagon to Veterans Affairs care.
The bill, approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee, also would boost disability pay and provide more counseling for family members of tens of thousands of U.S. service members wounded in combat.
The action, which sends the bill to the Senate floor, capped a flurry of activity in recent weeks to reach broad agreement on a single measure that would improve health care following reports of shoddy outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Separately, the VA said that it would bolster programs to prevent suicide among veterans by hiring additional counselors at each of its 153 medical centers after an internal review found that current VA programs were inadequate.
The unspecified number of new counselors would join 9,000 mental health professionals already employed by the VA to help veterans.
Meanwhile, the White House has backed away from earlier threats to veto a spending bill containing $4 billion more than President Bush sought for veterans' health care.
Just last month, White House budget director Rob Portman pledged that Bush would veto bills from Congress that would break through Bush's budget caps.
The House is slated on Friday to take up the $64.7 billion measure, which also funds military base construction. A companion Senate bill sailed through the Appropriations Committee Thursday afternoon.
---
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Hope Yen and Robert Burns contributed to this report.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
42 comments