Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your Gun Rights Could Soon Hang In The Balance
Gun Owners of America ^ | Apr 23, 2007 | NA

Posted on 04/24/2007 7:46:30 PM PDT by neverdem

www.gunowners.org
Apr 2007

Your Gun Rights Could Soon Hang In The Balance
-- VA Tech shootings now spurring the most far-reaching gun control in a decade

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:

1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)
2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.
3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.

Monday, April 23, 2007

The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill. Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.

The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.

First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.

"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.

SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?

Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-" rating by GOA.

HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I’ve never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.

Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?

Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.

But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?

Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.

Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.

IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL

Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:

1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).

NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]

3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.

Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.

GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.

HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- PRE-WRITTEN LETTER -----

Dear Representative:

I am a Second Amendment supporter who strongly opposes HR 297 -- the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 -- and I strongly agree with Gun Owners of America that this bill should be defeated.

The minor improvements this bill makes to the Brady instant check are insignificant when compared to the outrageous invasions of our privacy it would permit.

Gun Owners of America has posted an analysis of HR 297 on its website, showing how the bill will target millions of law-abiding gun owners, including thousands of combat veterans who served our country bravely.

Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or in England!

I think we've got to stop treating criminals like medical patients, thus allowing them to slip through the cracks. If we are not going to incarcerate dangerous people, then all the gun laws in the world will never stop them from getting firearms.

Don't be misled into thinking that this is a bill that gun owners endorse. Most gun owners want Brady repealed, not "fixed." The law has done nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, but it has violated the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding Americans.

Sincerely,

****************************



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; case; goa; hr297
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last
Please, write your own letter.
1 posted on 04/24/2007 7:46:32 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump and file


2 posted on 04/24/2007 7:51:37 PM PDT by thiscouldbemoreconfusing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

I actually read that the NRA (to which I proudly belong), is supporting this piece of trash. Someone please tell me I’m hallucinating!


3 posted on 04/24/2007 7:56:20 PM PDT by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

Please ping me if you find out that that’s true!


4 posted on 04/24/2007 7:59:31 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz
If you need proof - read this short commentary from The New Yorker's Talk of the Town column from Adam Gropnik:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/04/30/070430taco_talk_gopnik

The closing paragraph of which reads:

Rural America is hunting country, and hunters need rifles and shotguns—with proper licensing, we’ll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun. At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why.

Just like that, someone who can probably find a right to privacy and abortion that exists nowhere in the Constitution, finds that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

5 posted on 04/24/2007 8:03:06 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
One state group seems to believe it is true:

Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605

919-664-8565, www.grnc.org, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137

GRNC Alert 04-23-07:

In Wake of VT Shootings - Another Sellout of Rights

Our friends at Gun Owners of America alerted us to this threat to your rights being mounted upon the graves of the unfortunate victims of yet another killer facilitated by the Gun Free School Zones. We include their analysis and is followed by our call to action in the U. S. Congress.

-------------------

Monday, April 23, 2007

The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill. Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.

The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal ," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.

First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.

"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.

SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?

Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun

Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-" rating by GOA.

HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System . If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.

Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?

Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.

But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?

Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.

Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.

IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL

Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:

1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.

2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).

NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]

3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide - and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.

Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.

GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.

HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.

Immediate Action Required

* Contact the NRA ILA. Let them know that you do NOT agree with any support they may give this dangerous bill. https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx - 800-392-8683.

* Contact your representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

6 posted on 04/24/2007 8:10:11 PM PDT by Copernicus (Mary Carpenter Speaks About Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We do not need an armed government and an unarmed populace.

We do not need armed criminals and unarmed victims.

Remember Tiannemen Square.


7 posted on 04/24/2007 8:21:39 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Adam Gropnik also writes, "If having a loaded semi-automatic on hand kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are."

So, would Mr. Gropnik favor disarming the cops? Think of how much money the city could save!

8 posted on 04/24/2007 8:23:35 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

BUMP!!!


9 posted on 04/24/2007 8:25:02 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

The first thing the Nazis did to the Jews was take away their right to own guns. The rest was easy after that . Keep that in mind ..


10 posted on 04/24/2007 8:29:42 PM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz; neverdem
The NRA-ILA's position:

H.R. 297, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007”

11 posted on 04/24/2007 8:33:18 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

Why does it seem that GOA is always slamming the NRA? Money?


12 posted on 04/24/2007 8:35:40 PM PDT by neverhillorat (HILLORAT WINS, WE ALL LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: facedown
The JPFO's analysis:

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

April 24, 2007

JPFO ALERT: EXPLOITING A TRAGEDY

The gun-prohibitionists are taking full advantage of last weeks' horrific killings at Virginia Tech University to push more "gun-control" legislation in the form of HR 297, The NICS Improvement Act of 2007. Introduced back in January by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (aka the "Queen of Gun Control"), HR 297 is intended among other things to dangerously broaden the definition of "mental illness" for the purpose of denying firearms purchases.

Section (102)(c)(3) states:

"The State shall make available to the Attorney General ... the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code."

Can you imagine? ANYONE who has been to a mental institution or "adjudicated as mentally defective" would have their name and identifying information sent to the federal government.

It doesn't matter if you needed assistance coping with the devastating loss of a loved one or war-related post- traumatic stress disorder. It doesn't matter if you only stayed for a night because a spouse was worried about you. Regardless of circumstances, your information would be still be submitted and you would no longer be permitted to purchase a firearm.

The NRA is unabashedly enthusiastic about HR 297. They cheerfully assure us that the bill is designed to "fix problems" with recordkeeping while improving the availability of criminal history and "other" records for conducting background checks. ( http://www.nra- ila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=197 )

Perhaps they should consider the words of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who said, "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

As an educational organization, JPFO is not permitted to have a particular stance on this or any other legislation. But we do know flawed logic when we see it. So does Gun Owners of America, who calls HR 297 a "bureaucratic fishing expedition into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records." ( http://www.gunowners.org/a042307.htm )

In theory, if you were found not to have a mental illness, your name could be removed from the list. But in this day and age of such pyschiatric diagnoses as "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" and "Caffeine Dependence Syndrome", what's the likelihood of escaping without such a label?

The unintended consequences are obvious to any thinking person. As a result of HR 297, more people who do need mental help will avoid getting it. Fearing the consequent loss of their rights, individuals will refuse to visit a therapist or mental facility, and will therefore be MORE likely to "snap" when the pressure becomes too great to bear.

In one fell swoop, HR 297 will totally negate the decades of progress that have been made in de-stigmatizing mental therapy, while increasing the likelihood of repeating last Monday's slaughter.

Naturally, like any other "gun control" legislation, HR 297 would be enforced by the BATFE, giving them even more power to harrass and intimidate gun owners and dealers.

Way to go, Rep. McCarthy.

- The Liberty Crew

PS: Please note that this is the LAST CHANGE to become a member of the Producer's Circle for our new documentary _The Gang_.You must submit your donation no later than noon Wednesday April 25. Go to http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=16 for details.

============================================================

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

============================================================

LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts! Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jpfoalerts-unsubscribe@jpfo.org

=============================================================

Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today! http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html

=============================================================

Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2006 JPFO, Inc.

Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

PO Box 270143

Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

13 posted on 04/24/2007 8:40:22 PM PDT by Copernicus (Mary Carpenter Speaks About Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Thanks for the link.


14 posted on 04/24/2007 8:40:27 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It was already ILLEGAL for Cho to have guns on campus. What good is another law? We already have too many on the books.


15 posted on 04/24/2007 8:42:08 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Mitt Romney for President !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

Indeed, you are correct. Also, here’s MY take on this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822453/posts


16 posted on 04/24/2007 8:42:20 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Well done ..


17 posted on 04/24/2007 8:47:14 PM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

Thanks.


18 posted on 04/24/2007 8:59:41 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just for the record, my gun rights will not “hang in the balance” by any more stupid a$$ laws. Y’all want ‘em, come get ‘em. Blackbird.


19 posted on 04/25/2007 2:53:03 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST (A vote for rudyputin IS a vote for the hildabeast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverhillorat
Why does it seem that GOA is always slamming the NRA? Money?

In this case, I think it's justified. The NRA is plain wrong in my opinion on this bill, and GOA is right.

Passing any gun control while Nancy Pelosi runs the House will very likely eventuate in another case of very questionable politicking adding another midnight measure, such as the machine gun ban attached to the McClure-Volkmer "firearms owners protection" act.

It's dangerous enough to pass any legislation in reaction to a tragedy, but with the far left wing in charge, it's simply foolish.

20 posted on 04/25/2007 4:03:27 AM PDT by snowsislander (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson