Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: People, you need to read this and act NOW!

  1. #1
    Senior Member MASTER BUILDER
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Concord, Va
    Posts
    191

    People, you need to read this and act NOW!

    New Gun Control Legislation! This legislation is in the Senate and could come up as soon as tomorrow. Please act now and help defeat this bad legislation!! Please substitute YOUR Senator's name below instead of Jim Webb's.

    NRA Joins Dems to Push Gun Control
    From: Virginia Gun Owners Coalition <president>
    To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
    Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:01 AM


    NRA joins Democrats to push gun control

    Do you know a combat veteran who’s been diagnosed with Post-traumatic stress disorder?

    Was your son, niece, or grandchild prematurely diagnosed with ADHD as a child?

    If Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Pat Leahy have their way, your active and enthusiastic nephew and our military veterans would be prohibited from owning firearms -- ever. Their bill, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the NICS check, otherwise know as the Brady Registration Act, an unconstitutional and immoral infringement on the Second Amendment. The gun grabbers in Congress have been working to sneak this gun control into law, and now they’re moving quickly.

    This bill could pass the Senate as early as tomorrow.

    H.R. 2640 was passed out of the House on a voice vote, and was forced through the Senate Committee process on a series of un-recorded voice votes. The bill is currently waiting for anti-gun liberals like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid to call for a vote.

    The only reason this gun control bill has sailed through Congress is because the NRA is supporting it – and anti-gun activists are using the NRA’s support to force this bill into law.

    The NRA, who claims to be the voice of American gun owners, has betrayed these same gun owners and the constitutional rights they claim to support by joining with the Brady Campaign to pass the first major gun control legislation since the assault weapons ban.

    Maybe you’ve seen some of the stories; The Denver Post, Seattle Times, Washington Post have all reported on the NRA’s betrayal of gun owners. The NRA itself, in the September issue of the American Rifleman, has even bragged that it is supporting this legislation. (Go here http://www.nationalgunrights.org/othershr2640.shtml to see the evidence of the NRA support for the first major piece of gun control legislation in over a decade.)

    Why is the NRA trying to pass more gun control laws, when gun owners -- like you and me – think we need to be repealing these unconstitutional gun control laws altogether? In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy the NRA felt compelled to support gun control in exactly the same manner Charlton Heston (then President of the NRA) supported gun control after Columbine.

    The NRA’s rationale is to fashion the chains that bind us. They believe any gun-related legislation must have their fingerprints all over it, even if that legislation is vehemently opposed by their members and is an infringement of our rights. They talk tough to raise money (such as LaPierre calling the BATFE “jack-booted thugs” while supporting BATFE budget increases), but their actions are quite the opposite: they usually cut a backroom deal before the battle even begins. After all, you can’t be thought of as a “political player” if you don’t follow the insider’s rules. Wayne LaPierre’s worst nightmare is losing his invitation to the GOP cocktail circuit.

    With the NRA’s support, Senate Democrats are just waiting for the right moment – when gun owners are distracted -- before they pass the first major gun-control legislation since Bill Clinton was President. They can call the vote at any moment.

    There may still be time to stop this outrageous attack on our gun rights. You can help protect our right to keep and bear arms by doing these four things.

    1) Call Senator Jim Webb again and demand to know if he is going to filibuster H.R. 2640, the Psychiatrist Empowerment and Citizens Disarmament Act. Call 202 224 4024.

    2) Call Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the NRA, at (800) 392-8683 and tell him to stop supporting gun control. This is very important. This is how we got the NRA to back off supporting the renewal of the hated Clinton Gun Ban in 2004 in a backroom exchange for the gun manufacturers liability bill.

    3) Email the NRA’s federal lobbyist, Chuck Cunningham at [email protected] and [email protected]. Tell him and NRA to stop supporting gun control.

    4) Help VGOC fight gun control. Go here https://va.eftsecure.net/eftcart/pro...d=467112673452 to donate to NAGR.

    For Liberty

    Mike McHugh

    President, VGOC, www.vgoc.org


    _________________

  2. #2
    Senior Member DYNO TECH
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Leonard, Texas
    Posts
    414
    I'm a big supporter of the NRA, TRA and our second amendment rights. I read the proposed bill and see nothing that infringes on our second amendment rights.

    What I do read is legislation preventing mentally impaired people from owning a firearm until such time as they can prove themselves mentally competent. As a responsible gun owner, I have no issue with sane people owning guns, people who have mental issues have no business with one regardless if they're a veteran or not.

    Unless I've missed something (in which case please point it out) this is the responsible thing to do.
    'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.'

    Thomas Jefferson


    http://www.adinms.com/sitebuildercon...junkresize.jpg

  3. #3
    Senior Member DYNO OPERATOR
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by blittle
    I'm a big supporter of the NRA, TRA and our second amendment rights. I read the proposed bill and see nothing that infringes on our second amendment rights.

    What I do read is legislation preventing mentally impaired people from owning a firearm until such time as they can prove themselves mentally competent. As a responsible gun owner, I have no issue with sane people owning guns, people who have mental issues have no business with one regardless if they're a veteran or not.

    Unless I've missed something (in which case please point it out) this is the responsible thing to do.
    Dont think of me as a nut case blittle because i am with you on everthing you have just said. But I want to say you have to think like they do which you can't because you are a normal man with a brain I can tell that from your last statement. All I am saying is next it will be people with blonde hair because they could get mad about the blonde jokes and shoot somebody. But yes I am with you on your statement and glad to see a wise man.
    Wesley
    60' 1.30
    5.58 @ 127.89

  4. #4
    Senior Member RACING JUNKIE
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La.
    Posts
    2,890
    I'm with blittle and woodsman on this, just because a person who is a veteran, does not automatically qualify him to own a gun. I think the new law is specifact to people who have has been proven in the past to have mental disability problems. I personally donot want this person to own a gun, no matter who he/she may be. It's all to often in the last few yrs. that most shootings are pointed to mental problems with the shooter. For me i'm tired of seeing/reading these stories.
    I too see no violation of the 2nd amendment with this law, therefore i would not vote to stop this law from passing.

    Just my .02

    Zip.

  5. #5
    Member JUNIOR BUILDER
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    96
    I have to say the way this law reads it could be very unfair to a mentally sound veteran. Almost all vets that come back from a war get a medical which includes a mental health testing of sorts. you tell me of any sane man that has killed someone that don't feel bad about it. this should be addressed. But with this law as soon as it is, it opens the door for a non medical person to denie him the right to hunt or take part in shooting competitions. the hunters and competition shooters are every bit as enthused about their sport as we are about racing. I would bet if by the stroke of a pen a desk jockey at the local police department could put a stop to your racing because you followed orders and seen the shrink, you would change your tune quickly. Then you would have to hire an attorney and medical doctors to straighten it out, at what cost.

    Let me tell you about the exams the give for mental stability. Do you feel bad you killed anyone? Do you ever get depressed? Have you ever thought about taking your own life? It don't matter how you answered them questions. The answers are privileged, but the fact that you seen some quack isn't. Now for being asked them questions you can't go racing , you may deliberately run the crowd over. Is that a good law?
    The older I get the less i know for sure Dennis

  6. #6
    Member JUNIOR BUILDER
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia
    Posts
    70
    I am a gun owner in the state of Virginia and I also have my conceiled weapon permit. I can tell you that 3 years ago when I obtained this permit, it was SOOOO very easy to get it. The course lasted only 3 hours, consisted of an OPEN BOOK test at the end, and you had to fill out an application for the permit-That was all there was to it.
    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my 2nd ammendment rights just as any other gun owner does. However, something has to be done because obtaining a gun for a felon, metal case, etc is way to easy these days.
    Let 'er Rip

  7. #7
    Member JUNIOR BUILDER
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    96
    Do you suppose, if someone was going to get a wepon to commit a crime. They would buy one over the counter with a waiting period and then go get a concealed weapon permit? I think not. So who is this law aimed at? Not the criminal at all, but the law abiding citizen. The mentally stable go to work everyday guy. Not the Wacko that is going to shoot up a campus and don't want to tip anyone off. For sure not the felon that is planning an armed robbery. Surly not the Gang banger that has already stolen his gun from a sporting goods store or illegal gun dealer.

    If the Law is unenforceable it can serve no good purpose. There are laws that forbid the gun ownership by felons in most states. Why is it they can't stop a repeat felony with a fire arm that was not supposed to be in their possession. This law is not aimed at them. they have laws for them, that they can't enforce. This law is aimed at us. You and me. If you can't see that you need glasses.

    I suggest, that when, not if, this law fails to work, and it won't work because crazys and felons don't abide by the law. they will make a new law. One that may not take the privilege of gun ownership completely but kiss you concealed weapon permit good bye. possibly any gun transported has to be under triple lock and disassembled in the trunk of a car, and ammunition can not be transported in the same trip. But still would the crazy people or felons abide by that law? Then they will out law all guns. Is that going to help? No then just the crazys and felons will have guns. I can see where the crime rate would go at that point.

    If a mental midget of a law maker thinks they can legislate morality, they are very stupid. This is about political hype at the expense of gun owners this time, maybe smokers last time and possibly motor sports next time, Bunny huggers don't like noise and air pollution. Think hard on this it's just not about guns, it's about freedom. A cold beer after work isn't far behind the gun or cigarette. MADD has a big lobby. Seems the only ones that don't have a lobby are the sick and poor. They can't afford one.

    Don't buy into trying to legislate morality. The only one that can do that Is God, and that is because he can punish it. Them politicians are no gods, no matter what they think. People that buy into this mostly believe there is no free lunch and if a deal is too good to be true it's probably not. So what is different about this. Don't let either side tell you how to think, or they will be doing your thinking for you.
    The older I get the less i know for sure Dennis

  8. #8
    Senior Member DYNO OPERATOR
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    525
    Bubstr that is what I was trying to say but you have said it so much better. Well there you have it guy's put two ways one in redneck and one in Law. So like I said before its just one step closer. And I still dont think a wacko should have a gun. My son has been around guns all his life and has had one from 6 years old. Was in the Marines for 4 years in this war has 4 comfirmed kills. He's back in the U.S. for a year now has a good job new truck new 4 wheeler and 4 guns and last time i was off work we went shooting and had a good time doing it.
    Wesley
    60' 1.30
    5.58 @ 127.89

  9. #9
    Senior Member MASTER BUILDER
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Concord, Va
    Posts
    191

    More info for you on HR2640

    Maybe this will explain it more. Seems that the NRA is trying to discredit the group that opposes this new law. Read the rebutal from GOA!



    Pro-Gun Expert Rebutts NRA Lies
    From: Virginia Gun Owners Coalition <[email protected]>
    To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
    Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 2:09 PM

    Point-by-Point Response To Proponents Of HR 2640
    By Mike Hammond, legislative counsel to GOA
    June 15, 2007




    "You can dress up a pig, but you can't make it sing." Likewise, efforts to paint the McCarthy/ Schumer gun control bill as anything other than an anti-gun travesty are going to be just as unsuccessful

    There are a lot of (intentional) tricks in this bill. But there are two important things to remember:

    * First, for the first time, this bill would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans, troubled teens, and ailing seniors -- based solely on the diagnosis of a psychologist, as opposed to a finding by a court.
    * Second, at the sole discretion of BATFE and the FBI, this bill would compile the largest mega-list of personal information on Americans in existence -- particularly medical and psychological records. But information on the mega-list could not be used to battle terrorism and crime… only to bar Americans from owning guns. And, incidentally, it's the medical records themselves, not just a list of names, that would turned over under section 102 (b) (1) (C) (iv).
    And while the worst aspects of a newly enacted law are not always immediately apparent -- it took 32 years for 922 (g) to be used against veterans -- they will eventually come back to haunt us. And, by then, it will be too late to do anything about it.

    ANSWERS TO ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS MADE BY ONE “GUN GROUP”
    Recently, another gun group has released a document attacking Gun Owners of America and making a series of misleading statements. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal to that group's statements.

    1. MISSTATEMENT: "... these bills [H.R. 2640 and any counterparts] would only enforce current prohibitions [on gun ownership]...."

    THE TRUTH: BATFE has long tried to nudge the law to the point where a simple psychiatric diagnosis would put your name on the FBI's "list' and impose a lifetime gun ban on you. But this bill goes even farther in that direction than BATFE could have hoped.

    First, a little history: 18 U.S.C. 922(d) & (g) make you a prohibited person if you are "adjudicated as a mental defective...." But the question of what "adjudicated" means and who has to do the "adjudication" is a battle which has been raging for decades.

    When I was working in the Senate (1975-93), the view was that this provision barred gun sales to people who had been judged not guilty by reason of insanity -- or at least had come before a court, in a context where due process was afforded them. But, there has been an effort to extend this not just to the actions of courts, magistrates, etc., but also to any diagnosis by a federal-(or state)-sanctioned psychologist or psychiatrist.

    Hence, if a person were --

    a. A vet found by a VA doctor to be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder [PTS],

    b. A kid put on Ritalin under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in part because of the increased danger of playground fights;

    c. A senior with Alzheimer's receiving home health care under the Medicare program --

    then, under the new interpretation being pushed by anti-gun advocates, that person would be subject to a lifetime gun ban IF the term "adjudication" included a diagnosis, as opposed to just a court order.

    The efforts of BATFE to expand its jurisdiction are most fully contained in C.F.R. 478.11, where BATFE regulations provide that adjudication can be made by any "lawful authority." The same regulations also expand the ambit of "mental defective" to include a person who is "a danger to himself or to others; or [who] [l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs...." Furthermore, in a letter dated May 9, 2007, BATFE writes that "danger" means any danger, not simply "imminent" or "substantial" danger...." [Emphasis added]

    Hence, BATFE takes the position that something short of adjudication by a court -- and that alone -- is enough to make an individual a "prohibited person."

    In line with this interpretation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in the final year of the Clinton administration, sent the names of 83,000 veterans to the Instantcheck system, based generally on findings of post-traumatic stress disorder. However, that action caused so much controversy that, to my knowledge, few if any, additional names have been sent, notwithstanding reports that as many as one-quarter to one-third of Iraq veterans suffer from this problem.

    So, we have this very broad definition ("diagnosis" = "adjudication") which we have been battling over for more than a decade. And we have BATFE regulations which BATFE has been loathe to enforce, and which don't go quite so far as to say explicitly that a diagnosis is the same as court order, but could be interpreted to do so.

    This bill would definitively resolve that debate on the side of anti-gun interpretation even broader than BATFE's, and would make it clear that a psychiatrist's diagnosis would be tantamount to a court order!

    It would do this first in section 3(2), which provides BATFE's regulations concerning mental health issues now have the force of statutory law -- and cannot be changed, except by statute.

    In addition, section 101(c) (1) (C) is a Trojan Horse which makes this even clearer -- and goes even further. It provides that a person can be made a prohibited person, based "solely on a medical finding of disability" if that finding is (presumably, explicitly or implicitly) based on a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others or is unable to manage his own affairs.

    Hence, a VA-, IDEA-, or Medicare-related diagnosis of a veteran, kid or senior, based on a psychiatrist's finding of even microscopic amount of danger (or inability to manage one's own affairs) is enough to put the vet, kid, or senior on the FBI's "list."

    Remember:

    * According to the May 9 letter, the "danger" can be microscopic in magnitude.
    * In addition, cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, ADD, or Alzheimer's inherently involve at least some amount of "danger" or incapacity.
    2. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored...."

    THE TRUTH: I was personally involved in creating a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons like Iraq veterans when I shepherded the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 on behalf of Senator James McClure. Unfortunately, for years, Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which defunded this procedure. And, now, ironically, it is Schumer who is trying to lure us to pass his bill by a "restoration of rights" procedure which is more limited than the one currently on the books -- and which he has consistently blocked.

    3. MISSTATEMENT: "... H.R. 2640, introduced by Reps. John Dingell, (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy...."

    THE TRUTH: In fact, McCarthy -- not Dingell -- is the chief sponsor of the legislation. Dingell isn't even the chief cosponsor.

    4. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal 'adjudications' that consist only of medical diagnosis without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent."

    THE TRUTH: First of all, up until now there has been no statutory basis for making a person a prohibited person on the basis of a diagnosis. So McCarthy isn't doing gun owners any favor by establishing this principle -- and then "generously" carving a small loophole in it.

    Second, in the case of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, kids with attention deficit disorder, or seniors with Alzheimer's, de minimis levels of "danger" or incompetence are almost always an underlying issue (and, hence, an implicit finding). And the statement conveniently fails to mention the standard in the BATFE's May 9 letter, starting that "any" danger, no matter how de minimis, is sufficient.

    Third, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare or the state National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids, and seniors prohibited persons -- even without meeting the de minimis "danger" standard in 101(c) (1) (C), which is applicable only to federal diagnosis, not state diagnosis.

    5. MISLEADING STATEMENET: “H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications... to provide a process for 'relief from disabilities'...."

    THE TRUTH: As we have seen, McClure-Volkmer created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons like Iraq veterans. Given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since 1992 (without significant opposition), what is it to prevent him from doing the same thing with respect to the new (redundant) procedures? This is like stealing our money and then using it to bargain with us. And, incidentally, why should we reward Schumer for his bad faith in blocking relief from disabilities under McClure-Volkmer by passing his bill in exchange for a restoration-of-rights "chit" which is more limited than the law currently on the books -- and which he has consistently blocked?

    6. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed."

    THE TRUTH: As a practical matter, this is just not true. States vary widely on the ability to expunge felonies and "Lautenberg misdemeanors," even for crimes which are very old, relatively minor, or regulatory in nature.

    7. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "H.R. 2640 would prohibit reporting of mental health adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.... H.R. 2640 would also make clear that if a federal adjudication or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a person from possessing or receiving firearms...."

    THE TRUTH: This is not exactly true.

    First, it's not entirely clear how a diagnosis gets "removed" -- or what incentive any psychologist would have for issuing a written finding that there is not "any danger" whatsoever that a battle-scarred veteran or an ADD kid will never get into even a minor scrape as a result of the condition. Even if that were possible, the process of proving that to a government agency and getting the agency to tell the FBI to take a name off its "list" is certainly something 83,000 veterans currently wrongly classified as prohibited persons are not going to be able to do.

    Second, there is language in the bill which could arguably restore the rights of the most dangerous -- but not those who were simply "diagnosed" with PTS, ADD, Alzheimer's, etc. Hence, while someone who was actually intended to be covered by 922(d) & ) (g) and is dangerous and locked up might actually be able to get his rights back by proving that he had been "released and discharged" under 101(c) (1) (C) (A), someone who is just subject to a diagnosis -- and hence can't be "released or discharged" from an institution which never restrained him -- cannot benefit from this provision.

    Third, again, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare, or the State National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids and seniors prohibited person -- but these victims would not be able to restore their rights under sections 101(c) (1) (A), even if a thousand psychologists testified that they were wholly "normal."

    8. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "States that receive funding would also need to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications...."

    THE TRUTH: As we've already stated twice, McClure-Volkmer created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons like Iraq veterans, ADD kids, and seniors with Alzheimer's. Given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since 1992 (without significant opposition), it is certainly not beyond the capacity of an appropriations rider to bar even state procedures which are directly or indirectly funded by federal funds under this bill.

    Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was always an expensive long shot. Presumably, this new procedure will be the same.

    9. STATEMENT: "... it would give states an incentive to report people [like Seung-Hui Cho]... who were found after a full court hearing to be a danger...."

    OBSERVATION: You can debate forever whether the facts of the Cho case bring him under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). But the fact is that, if you want to reach persons adjudicated by court, why don't you just limit the bill to court adjudications, rather than extending it to diagnoses?

    10. STATEMENT: "The legislation requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records."

    OBSERVATION: Subsection (g) of the Statutes-at-Large portion of the Brady Law already requires removal of inaccurate information. However, persons we know who have tried to invoke this section have received a form letter summarily rejecting their requests. If the FBI is willing to ignore subsection (g), why would we expect that a redundant procedure doing the same thing would be effectual?

    11. STATEMENT: "The legislation prohibits federal fees for NICS checks."

    OBSERVATION: I DRAFTED THE ORIGINAL Smith amendment, which, in modified form, is carried over annually on appropriations bills to achieve this result. (Incidentally, the "gun group" which is currently attacking GOA was, at the time, urging Smith not to force his amendment to a vote, on the assumption that he would lose.) If we really want to make the Smith amendment permanent -- and I suspect there is supermajority support for this -- we can do it on this year's appropriations.

    12. STATEMENT: "The legislation requires an audit [by the GAO]...."

    OBSERVATION: A congressman -- particularly a chairman or ranking member -- can order a GAO audit anytime he wants without this legislation.

    13. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought... counseling...."

    THE TRUTH: 27 C.F.R. 478.11 does, at least initially, exclude a person who voluntarily seeks counseling. However, the regulation specifically states that the "voluntariness" can quickly turn to "involuntariness" under a number of circumstances, such as when the individual seeks to withdraw from the "voluntary" arrangement.

    Section 101(c) (1) (C) of this bill establishes that a diagnosis based "solely on a medical finding or disability" makes a person a prohibited person under the bill -- and requires that the person's "records" be turned over to the FBI -- if the diagnosis is based on a finding of even a microscopic amount of risk, which will be invariably involved with any PTS veteran, ADD kid, or Alzheimer's senior.

    This subparagraph makes no voluntary/involuntary distinction, and will probably trump section 3(2), which statutorily codifies 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

    As a result, it is fairly clear that the question of whether treatment is voluntary or involuntary will no longer be relevant under the bill.

    SUMMARY
    Agencies invariably use the regulatory process to try to expand their jurisdiction. And it is never a "status quo act" to codify these abusive and expansive regulations -- which only gives an agency a platform to expand further.

  10. #10
    Member JUNIOR BUILDER
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    96
    The old guy is riled up. Here is a bit of a History lesson. History is a great learning tool, because it repeats it's self.

    Everyone has heard of turning their swords to plow shares. This was common for a conquering army to disarm the conquered. They where easier to control. This has been common practice from day one. Gengus Kahn, Greeks, Romans, Germans and most third world dictators, and yes the English when the United states was a colony.

    The Colonys where not even allowed to make their own shovels. Partly because the English wished to have a market for their's but more so because they did not want an industrial colony that was capable of making cannons and rifles. If they where un armed they couldn't protest too much about the high taxes that they received no service from. Does high taxes ring a bell? Our taxes today are higher percentage wise than in 1775, and still there are old and poor dieing because there is no help for them.

    Our fore fathers that gave us our rights didn't have special interest groups to pay back. they all volunteered and didn't even have a special retirement plan. The basically did what is right for the country, not what a big business buddy wanted. They in fact gave the people the right to bare arms to protect the people from our own government. This would never allow the Government becoming stronger than the people. Keeping it a free land to live in. This was a balance of power, much like they had in mind when they created three separate parts to our government. A Government of checks and balances. These where not hunting weapons, they would have been machine guns or cannons if they had them at the time.

    Now you could say, That was back in the old days. I would say, the nature of people has never changed, especially money and power hungry people. It displayed it's self in Germany in the 40s, India in the 50s, China, North Korea Several south American Countrys and continues to this day.

    I'm not advocating a war against our Government. I'm saying don't be the weak one if it came to war. Be the balance that you where meant to be. The old saying is very true. Anyone that would trade freedom and rights for security, deserves neither and will get neither. It is a lesson in history that came back to haunt people over and over again. I'd like better for my kids and grandchildren.
    The older I get the less i know for sure Dennis


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright © 2005-2016 RacingJunk.com All Rights Reserved.

Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the RacingJunk.com
Terms of Use, Classifieds Disclaimer, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy