2640
Passed today. More gun control...pushed by the NRA.
Just a reminder, for all you that support gun control...where your leaders are taking you.
Go see the Death Chart..UNDERSTAND..REALLY TRY to understand where your leaders are leading.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Just a reminder, for all you that support gun control...where your leaders are taking you.
Go see the Death Chart..UNDERSTAND..REALLY TRY to understand where your leaders are leading.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
0
-
As in both branches of Congress????...going to the President, passed??? Please tell me that this is not the case! 0 -
Passed the House in June.Senate vote today..rammed thru just before Christmas. Your slimy, corrupt Anti-American Congress...hard at work.
Destroying freedom in America.
Information is sketchy right now..they passed it..same as the House...on voice vote, or so it seems.0 -
Lock & Load 0 -
Hardball...is the final bill still called 2640??? We need this info when contacting the President. Thanks. 0 -
for those of us that are not very political and haven't been keeping up. What is 2640 and what does that mean? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by smithjr
for those of us that are not very political and haven't been keeping up. What is 2640 and what does that mean?
A whole bunch of bad stuff...do a quick search (on GB) of "2640" and read the old posts that come up.0 -
quote:What is 2640 and what does that mean?
2640 came about because of the Va Tech shooting. The shooter was crazy, should not have been approved for a purchase because of previous mental problems. Lay most of the blame on REPUBLICAN senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Without his support, the bill would have died! And guess what...the freaking NRA signed off on it!0 -
ECC;
Don't know yet. This is fresh..and rammed thru because of Cogburn buckling at Christmas time.
Seems to be nothing beyond a few scattered press releases..Wagon Wheel says there is nothing on the Senate site yet.
Will try and dig it out tomorrow.0 -
Iluvguns; quote:Lay most of the blame on REPUBLICAN senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Without his support, the bill would have
You have no idea what you are talking about. This bill would have been passed MONTHS ago without Coburn putting a 'hold' on it.
He won 'concessions';..forced them to put funding into the bill for revue boards.
Expect the funding to be cut out quickly...Coburn being inexperienced at the duplicity of veteran politicians.0 -
Where are the NRA Cheerleaders NOW??????????????????????
Compromised us into another law, YET AGAIN!
SCREW the NRA! Why not? They've screwed us so many times it is sick!
Merc0 -
Here's a link to the AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_11
big shrug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
Where are the NRA Cheerleaders NOW??????????????????????
!
Merc
You asked0 -
quote:You have no idea what you are talking about. This bill would have been passed MONTHS ago without Coburn putting a 'hold' on it.
Yeah, and if the SOB had of held on, it would still be tied up! He caved in, plain and simple. The "concessions" the Dems are talking about, and that Coburn are so glibly touting, are just for him to save face with the good folks in OK that elected him. He can know run home and say, "Well, I tried. I did get them to do this instead though." And he will be lying through his teeth. He is just as culpable as the Schumer and Reid and McCarthy and all the rest.
HE CAVED!0 -
quote:Yeah, and if the SOB had of held on, it would still be tied up! He caved in, plain and simple. The "concessions" the Dems are talking about, and that Coburn are so glibly touting, are just for him to save face with the good folks in OK that elected him. He can know run home and say, "Well, I tried. I did get them to do this instead though." And he will be lying through his teeth. He is just as culpable as the Schumer and Reid and McCarthy and all the rest.
HE CAVED!
Alright..I agree. He caved. One Senator, standing alone..against even his PRESIDENT !!!
You a Republican ? Where the hell was YOUR party when he needed help ?
Your scurvy Republicans are every bit as guilty as the sorriest Democrat...MORESO, EVEN...the Democrats don't even give LIP service to the ideals of the Constitution....one EXPECTS this sort of thing from THEM...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
Where are the NRA Cheerleaders NOW??????????????????????
Compromised us into another law, YET AGAIN!
SCREW the NRA! Why not? They've screwed us so many times it is sick!
Merc
They are slinking away, hoping to not have to defend the indefensible again.
I am sickened and enraged, but not suprised by the passage of this abortion. After all, the NRA supported it so it must pass "Constitutional muster", right?
Otherwise they would have warned mom and pop gun-owner and taken an "opposition stance" on this wonderful bill.
Another step toward the eventual loss of the RTKBA, again facilitated and supported by our blessed NRA.
Gotta love those guys and their cheer squad huh?[V][xx(][:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
Where are the NRA Cheerleaders NOW??????????????????????
!
Merc
You asked
If I wasn't so pissed about the whole deal, i'd have cracked up over that.[:D]
I didn't know that tr had come out of the closet, but there, right before my very eyes....proof positive.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote:You have no idea what you are talking about. This bill would have been passed MONTHS ago without Coburn putting a 'hold' on it.
Yeah, and if the SOB had of held on, it would still be tied up! He caved in, plain and simple. The "concessions" the Dems are talking about, and that Coburn are so glibly touting, are just for him to save face with the good folks in OK that elected him. He can know run home and say, "Well, I tried. I did get them to do this instead though." And he will be lying through his teeth. He is just as culpable as the Schumer and Reid and McCarthy and all the rest.
HE CAVED!
You really should quit while you are ahead.
Right now, only your ass is showing. Please don't make it worse and really embarrass yourself.0 -
Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.0 -
quote:You a Republican ? Where the hell was YOUR party when he needed help ?
Nope. Not a Republican. Not a Democratic either. [8D] Actually registered about 3 years ago as a Independent. Should have seen the look that got in the court house when I went in to have it changed!
Don't know what pushed your button, but without HIS vote, the bill would not have moved. They only needed ONE republican to cross over to the dark side, and he did.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote:You a Republican ? Where the hell was YOUR party when he needed help ?
Nope. Not a Republican. Not a Democratic either. [8D] Actually registered about 3 years ago as a Independent. Should have seen the look that got in the court house when I went in to have it changed!
Don't know what pushed your button, but without HIS vote, the bill would not have moved. They only needed ONE republican to cross over to the dark side, and he did.
Forest and trees sir, forest and trees.
This is about the Federal Government's lack of Constitutional authority to regulate firearms. This is about more of America's Citizens being prevented from the RTKBA by another arbitrary and capricious decision of the Fed, based on ZERO authority to do so and capped off by the whole process being slammed down our throats in a smarmy, underhanded way.
All this with the support, facilitation and assistance of the blessed NRA and by proxy, its members.
It is not about one politico's ability or inability to prevent this added unconstitutional infringement of the RTKBA.
Forest and trees......0 -
quote:Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.
Yes, indeedy...mentally ill people perhaps shouldn't own guns. That is a problem for the community to look at...and decent people will not allow REAL mentally ill people to own guns.
There is absolutely no place for central governmental controls on whom is considered 'mentally ill'...and allowing them to do so is so very dangerous as to be INSANE for ordinary citizens to be CHEERING it !!!0 -
I don't think Coburn "caved" at all.
Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.
His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun.
Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.
The compromise would require that incorrect records - such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do - be removed from system within 30 days.
I agree with the NRA, I don't see anything wrong with this bill. As
stated above, it could prevent another nut job from buying a gun and allow vets. and other people to buy a gun.
Also, it is not a law yet. Bush has 10 days to pass,veto or ignore the bill.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.
I don't know all the details either, and that is part of the problem.
A newspaper or TV reporter's interpretation of what some politician told him his understanding of what the bill might say means nothing. What is important is what the bill actually says and WHAT A JUDGE THINKS IT SAYS.
I have two problems with the bill, regardless of what it says:
1. The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. Period.
2. In 1963 I volunteered for the Winter-Over Party of Operation Deep Freeze. At that time the Navy required all members of the Winter-Over Party to have a psychiatric evaluation. I was selected for the Winter-Over Party of DEEP FREEZE 11 in 1964. I was ordered to report to a psychiatrist. I went to his office at the appointed time, stood at attention in front of his desk, and the interview went as follows:
Me: Petty Officer JamesRK reporting as ordered, sir.
Psychiatrist: Why did you volunteer to go to Antarctica?
Me: Because I've never been there.
Psychiatrist: Get out of my office!
I've been told, but I don't know, that I might be disqualified from buying a firearms because I was ORDERED to see the psychiatrist.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.
I don't know all the details either, and that is part of the problem.
A newspaper or TV reporter's interpretation of what some politician told him his understanding of what the bill might say means nothing. What is important is what the bill actually says and WHAT A JUDGE THINKS IT SAYS.
I have two problems with the bill, regardless of what it says:
1. The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. Period.
2. In 1963 I volunteered for the Winter-Over Party of Operation Deep Freeze. At that time the Navy required all members of the Winter-Over Party to have a psychiatric evaluation. I was selected for the Winter-Over Party of DEEP FREEZE 11 in 1964. I was ordered to report to a psychiatrist. I went to his office at the appointed time, stood at attention in front of his desk, and the interview went as follows:
Me: Petty Officer JamesRK reporting as ordered, sir.
Psychiatrist: Why did you volunteer to go to Antarctica?
Me: Because I've never been there.
Psychiatrist: Get out of my office!
I've been told, but I don't know, that I might be disqualified from buying a firearms because I was ORDERED to see the psychiatrist.
So this part of the bill will help you:
The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pistoljim
So this part of the bill will help you:
The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.
That's damn sweet of them. [:(!] [V] [:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.
I don't know all the details either, and that is part of the problem.
A newspaper or TV reporter's interpretation of what some politician told him his understanding of what the bill might say means nothing. What is important is what the bill actually says and WHAT A JUDGE THINKS IT SAYS.
I have two problems with the bill, regardless of what it says:
1. The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. Period.
2. In 1963 I volunteered for the Winter-Over Party of Operation Deep Freeze. At that time the Navy required all members of the Winter-Over Party to have a psychiatric evaluation. I was selected for the Winter-Over Party of DEEP FREEZE 11 in 1964. I was ordered to report to a psychiatrist. I went to his office at the appointed time, stood at attention in front of his desk, and the interview went as follows:
Me: Petty Officer JamesRK reporting as ordered, sir.
Psychiatrist: Why did you volunteer to go to Antarctica?
Me: Because I've never been there.
Psychiatrist: Get out of my office!
I've been told, but I don't know, that I might be disqualified from buying a firearms because I was ORDERED to see the psychiatrist.
Did they find you with a mental heath issue? Are there and records of it?
Seems to me there's no problem then.
Just the same as if I/they were told I could be a felon.
No records of it, so no problem.
No need to create a problem if it doesn't exsist.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
No need to create a problem if it doesn't exsist.[;)]
It's very likely that this being forty-four years ago I'll be dead before the records are searched back that far, but there are 303,633,355 other Americans.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
No need to create a problem if it doesn't exsist.[;)]
It's very likely that this being forty-four years ago I'll be dead before the records are searched back that far, but there are 303,633,355 other Americans.
Well said James and on-point.
The Fed has further encroached into the realm of legislating which of America's Citizens shall be prevented from exercising their God-given RTKBA. All this, in direct violation of Amendment II of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, regardless of what some may say, or the "feel good" mentality.[:(!][V]
It is what it is.
Sad day for America.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
Where are the NRA Cheerleaders NOW??????????????????????
!
Merc
You asked
If I wasn't so pissed about the whole deal, i'd have cracked up over that.[:D]
I didn't know that tr had come out of the closet, but there, right before my very eyes....proof positive.[;)]
[:D][:D][:D]ROTFL...I'm sorry, but that there is darn right funny!0 -
quote:Originally posted by pistoljim
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Maybe I don't know all the details but what's wrong with a mentally ill person not being allowed to own a gun?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We already have that law in Illinois.
I don't know all the details either, and that is part of the problem.
A newspaper or TV reporter's interpretation of what some politician told him his understanding of what the bill might say means nothing. What is important is what the bill actually says and WHAT A JUDGE THINKS IT SAYS.
I have two problems with the bill, regardless of what it says:
1. The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. Period.
2. In 1963 I volunteered for the Winter-Over Party of Operation Deep Freeze. At that time the Navy required all members of the Winter-Over Party to have a psychiatric evaluation. I was selected for the Winter-Over Party of DEEP FREEZE 11 in 1964. I was ordered to report to a psychiatrist. I went to his office at the appointed time, stood at attention in front of his desk, and the interview went as follows:
Me: Petty Officer JamesRK reporting as ordered, sir.
Psychiatrist: Why did you volunteer to go to Antarctica?
Me: Because I've never been there.
Psychiatrist: Get out of my office!
I've been told, but I don't know, that I might be disqualified from buying a firearms because I was ORDERED to see the psychiatrist.
So this part of the bill will help you:
The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.
The ignorance...[V]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
71 comments