-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
- Thread starter Mike1911
- Start date
Reads OK in the story, but the "devil is in the details"!
I don't trust either the NRA or the politicians on this stuff. NRA has sold us down the river before (e.g. Brady, etc.).
I don't trust either the NRA or the politicians on this stuff. NRA has sold us down the river before (e.g. Brady, etc.).
Garys
NES Member
Gee, not slanted towards the Democrats too much, is it? /Sarcasm.
Unlike you Len, I put a lot more faith in the NRA than I do in Democrat politicians to protect gun owners rights.
Gary
Unlike you Len, I put a lot more faith in the NRA than I do in Democrat politicians to protect gun owners rights.
Gary
Gary, you are putting words in my mouth.
I wasn't making a comparison BETWEEN them on who I trust more. I was saying that I don't trust EITHER OF THEM with my rights. I've been an NRA Life member since ~1980 and have read enough of their selling our rights down the river to make me concerned, very concerned.
While I hate to see any sort of compromise, the practical part of me says that if we don't negotiate something in our benefit, we would most certainly see something worse. Until we have the political clout to do away with all such gun laws, this is what we are left with.
In all fairness the anti gun people probably are thinking the same thing.... that the NRA and gun folks are unrelentless and unwilling to compromize- which we aren't. It's classic negotiation. But we are relatively small in numbers and until that changes we'll be at risk.
I'm a little gun shy whenever Congress starts mucking around with gun laws.
The Feds seem to make things worse instead of better, and I'm sure we'll learn of some unintended consequence that arises from this bill.
While I agree that seriously mentally ill people should not have firearms, I'm afraid the wording of the bill could make non medical people the ones who decide who is sane, and who isn't. Like Len said, the devil is in the details
I'm glad they are doing something for the many Veterans who lost their right to have firearms when they were rated 100% disabled due to PTSD or anxiety. With treatment and therapy, almost all these people lead lawful and peaceful lives, and in my opinion are no more likely to commit firearms offenses than the general population.![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
The Feds seem to make things worse instead of better, and I'm sure we'll learn of some unintended consequence that arises from this bill.
While I agree that seriously mentally ill people should not have firearms, I'm afraid the wording of the bill could make non medical people the ones who decide who is sane, and who isn't. Like Len said, the devil is in the details
I'm glad they are doing something for the many Veterans who lost their right to have firearms when they were rated 100% disabled due to PTSD or anxiety. With treatment and therapy, almost all these people lead lawful and peaceful lives, and in my opinion are no more likely to commit firearms offenses than the general population.
The really ironic part about this whole bill is that the normally gun neutral, or even hostile organizations are actually against it. Strange times indeed....
Reading the article, I can't find what we're supposed to have got out of the deal. That's usually the part of the concept of "compromise" -- each side gives up something the other wants. Like every other gun control bill with the exception of FOPA, the only "compromise" that I can see is that the gun grabbers didn't get everything they wanted all at once.
Ken
Ken
Unfortunately that does not matter very much.
Ken is right.
I think that what we "got" was that they removed the boot from our throat for a moment . . . but only for a moment, don't kid yourself.
I think that what we "got" was that they removed the boot from our throat for a moment . . . but only for a moment, don't kid yourself.
Len,
I don't think that anyone is kidding themselves about this. The question however is, if the NRA did not get involved, or if they had refused to work something out, where would we be now?
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
I'm not sure.
If one accepts the belief that gun issues are the "third rail", perhaps it would have died without NRA support.
One thing I am sure of is that Ted Kennedy will try to attach some sort of ban to it, as will some others. Ted's got nothing to lose . . . he'll get re-elected regardless of what he does.
Garys
NES Member
But others don't. Ask Al Gore why he lost in 2000. Also, don't assume that all Democrats across the country are anti gun. A number of them, especially in the south, ran and won by running to the right of the RINOs they were trying to toss out. Jim Webb is staunchly anti Iraq war, but he is also staunchly pro 2A. More so than was George Allan.
All of which is to say that the Democrats are very leery of pushing gun control too far. The ones that are firmly entrenched, like Kennedy will, but a lot of others won't.
Which gives the NRA some running room to at least stop some of the proposals. Stopping a law from passing if usually more important than getting one passed.
Gary
+1
I expect that the "free states" will need to implement some sort of a FID system to be in compliance.
IMHO... "gun issues" have become the "third rail" of politics precisely because of the NRA. What other RKBA organization has made it a 'make or break' issue?
The Dems (well...some of them), genuinely fear the power/influence of the NRA.
Pffft... let him or any others try. Reid/Pelosi isn't going to risk it prior to a Presidential election year. And there's actually a few junior Dem Senators that are RKBA supporters.
What happens in 2008 or afterwards is anyones guess. The NRA is wisely putting their chess pieces into place now.
If anyone kills this bill it's going to be the Public/Mental Health lobby (as they have in the past).
End result will be that no one (not even McCarthy, Kennedy, or Sarah Brady), can legitimately claim that the NRA/gun lobby opposed allowing people with mental health problems from owing firearms.
Quite frankly Ken, if GOA had half the members and half the money of the NRA, they would only be half as effective. If that.
The benefit to NRA members is that this bill would provide a means or process for appeal from problems now in the system, such as if you have a name that comes up *bad* because a real bad guy has the same name. Also will allow those who have had their status in medical situations to be cleared.
OTOH, someone who I respect just mentioned that "public officials" will be able to have a person committed for psychiatric review, be reported into the system, and lose their gun rights. Could this be more easily accomplished were this bill in place as law? I do not know.
It does sound like one step closer to a National ID, doesn't it?
OTOH, someone who I respect just mentioned that "public officials" will be able to have a person committed for psychiatric review, be reported into the system, and lose their gun rights. Could this be more easily accomplished were this bill in place as law? I do not know.
It does sound like one step closer to a National ID, doesn't it?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
If the NRA were "effective" in this situation, they would push for a procedure by which someone who has been involuntarily committed could be declared "not mentally ill" by an MD and get their rights back.
Under current law, someone who is involuntarily committed loses their rights for life, even if it's a 72 hour evaluation that results in the conclusion "no sign of mental illness or defect."
This current "deal" reminds me of GOAL declaring how the permanent high capacity ban in MA was a good law.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,411
- Likes
- 8,254
If the NRA were 'effective', the term "Shall Not Be Infringed" would mean what it means.
The fact is, the NRA only really has the power to delay and defuse. Far too many people have been hoodwinked by the socialists to give up their right to life itself. And they don't even know it. Nor do they even seem to care.
The fact is, the NRA only really has the power to delay and defuse. Far too many people have been hoodwinked by the socialists to give up their right to life itself. And they don't even know it. Nor do they even seem to care.
pdm
NES Member
Oh, but they will come crying to gun owners to protect them one day. Only there won't be any left.
I'll defend the NRA on this one. Despite what the folks on this board say, we are in the minority in this country. After the VT shooting many people were pushing for tighter gun-control. The NRA preempted REALLY bad legislation by getting involved with Congress immediately. Sure, they could have done what GOA did and bitch and moan about any and all legislation. You know what would have happened then? We would be stuck with some really shity legislation that would really piss us off. Like a doctor's note stating you are sane prior to a gun purchase.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,411
- Likes
- 8,254
Rights and our Government were DEFINED on the preservation of the rights of the individual. Minority or not, these legislators are violating their oath of office and are CRIMINALS.
I understand what the NRA was doing. I'm just trying to point out that the story NOT being told here is a bunch of lawmakers that are allowed to vote away any rights that the majority wants.
I understand what the NRA was doing. I'm just trying to point out that the story NOT being told here is a bunch of lawmakers that are allowed to vote away any rights that the majority wants.
The problem is, that the gun banners are no different than terrorists. Once
you feed into their BS agenda by "negotiating" with them, then you only
encourage them to commit more acts of terror. Just because the
gun banning pricks aren't fighting us with violence (how ironic) doesn't
mean that they're not aware of how this works. There is a price to
be paid by capitulating to these people. It may not come to roost
immediately but it might down the road, when some future generation
thinks that it's "okay" to have more gun regulations because "even the
NRA thought it was a good idea" on more than one occasion.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
It is one thing for the NRA to compromise if it has an untenable political
situation in front of it (eg a house/senate full of antis) it is another thing
entirely for them to do it when the "weather is good" like it is now and has
been over the past few years. (at least on the federal/national side).
Right now, blaming "inadequate background checks" as being the sole
cause of things like the VT shootings, is essentially capitulating to
terror.... the NRA is fostering the notional (even in however a small
way) that guns need to be regulated more.
-Mike
No, we're not, actually. There are at least 80 million gun owners in this
country, and even if 75% of them are fudds, politically speaking that is a
hell of a lot more than a "minority". Ask any of the dethroned congress
critters if voting for the clinton AWB was a good idea. Most of them
would probably go back and change their vote if they could, because
the longer term fallout from that one decision was enormous. The
number of gun owners has also been growing at a pretty decent clip,
especially on the more important side of the equation, eg, people interested
in defending themselves.... that segment has grown considerably since
9/11, as well as all the right to carry initiatives occuring over the last
couple of decades.
Maybe gun owners are a minority in a commie state like MA or NJ, but
certainly not in the most of the rest of the US. There is a reason
that anti gun movements are all operated out of the big dump cities-
and that is because the rest of the country isn't interested in or doesn't
want gun control.
The only thing that limits our power in the US is the fact that not enough
people complain. If there were 5% more gun owners acting as activists
all this anti-gun crap would be toileted, forever. The limiting factor is
lazy, apathetic gun owners, not the actual numbers.
And many more lobbied for less gun control or more reasonable
restrictions. Ironically the VT tragedy, IMO, helped us more than
it hurt. The level of anti whining was there but not as much as it was
with things like columbine, etc... and the reason why is because they know
they are losing traction. People are starting to figure out that the anti's
logic and rhetoric is garbage. We haven't beat them yet and must keep
pummeling, but I think there is a bit of light at the end of the
tunnel, however small it may be.
And, the chances of that bill passing, were? (nevermind the fact that
currently neither segment is really interested in gun laws at the moment)
Yeah, and if we keep capitulating to these "compromiser" regs, that could
still happen anyways, and by doing so (when we don't need to) we're
laying the groundwork to get boned by the antis later on; some anti
will say "well even the NRA agrees with (insert bogus idea here.). That is
the problem. Pay now or pay later.... I would rather bring the blowtorch
to the antis now than later, while we still have the fuel to burn these
insects.
-Mike
Similar threads
