[Erik Latranyi]

The NRA has never accomplished anything for gun rights.

This is from GOA (in the article):

"In fact, over the last 30 years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories…" the group said.

So, is the NRA backing bad bills in conjunction with GOA? ...and the GOA is proud of it!

So, either you are all liars (GOA people and NRA people) or your childish little group is more important to you than the overall objective.

The stupidity of GOA and NRA members becoming divided exceeds all bounds.

Let's put some sanity back into this debate.

The bill, as written, is not all that bad. It gets the states to implement computerization of criminal records, something neither group opposes.

I do not see where a person's rights can be taken away by a psychologist. It actually says under TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS, (c), 1, (C) that a record cannot be included in the NICS if "...the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs."

The bill also provides for legal challenge to any adjudication.

So, please explain the objection without hysteria.

[seemoAR]

So, you think I should be required to prove that I meet the Feds rules. Who is going to pay for the legal challenge if I were found to be a risk?. Would a criminal obey the law?. That is just plain Stoopid.

[Gilbo_3]

The stupidity of GOA and NRA members becoming divided exceeds all bounds.

Let's put some sanity back into this debate.

IMO, this bickering is a tactical victory for lil' chuckie et al.

Also IMO, another tactical battle is waged EVERY TIME we advance another firearms law, ie infringement. the mere debate of a new law is an advocation of the gov having power to infringe free men.

If a person is 'safe' to walk the streets [free], then that individual has rights to self defence. when that person is fairly judged to be mentally or socially incompetent to handle the responsibilities that his rights demand, THEN we [as the gov] can act to restrict freedom...

Also, we all know how lawyers yearn to write laws that insure 'job security', for themselves, judges, legislators etc to perpetually have to redefine the word 'is'.

This neverending manipulation of the english language by our socialist masters continues to force FREE men to waste valuable time & treasure to re-fight the same obvious battles, up hill no less, to 'restore' that which the masters had no 'right' to infringe.

my .02...

[editor-surveyor]

"The bill, as written, is not all that bad. It gets the states to implement computerization of criminal records"

The second ammendment says nothing about any exceptions, and the criminals that matter should be in jail. If they're not, they're unlikely to care about another law anyway. We cannot allow the creation of myriad criminal statutes have the potential to disarm people; we need all the gun owners that we can get.

"something neither group opposes."

And that is the saddest part of all. The second ammendment makes plain that all private guns are outside the purview of government.