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

Skip to comments.

Congress toughens background checks for gun buyers
AP/Newsday ^ | December 20, 2007 | BETH MURTAGH

Posted on 12/22/2007 6:28:02 AM PST by lowbridge

Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's previously stalled bill toughening the national gun background check system in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings sailed through both chambers of Congress within hours yesterday after a flurry of legislative activity.

"I don't know whether to laugh or to cry," said McCarthy (D-Mineola), who saw her legislation pass the House in June only to have it blocked in the Senate. "You don't know how many times it's come to this point."

In a statement, Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "This simple but very important bill has been a long time coming. It will prevent gun sales to people who have no right to own one because of mental infirmity. This legislation will save lives."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 110th; backgroundcheck; bang; banglist; chuckschumer; gungrabbers; guns; mentalillness; schumer; secondamendment; vatech; virginiatech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2007 6:28:04 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Image hosted by Photobucket.com i guess she just voted out her own gun rights then, cause the b!tch is mentally ill...
2 posted on 12/22/2007 6:30:15 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Democrats should never be allowed to own a gun. Their failure to take responsibility for their actions shows they are not fit to be gun owners. Now, it’s obvious Democrats are mentally ill, which should be one more reason they should never be allowed to own a gun.


3 posted on 12/22/2007 6:30:45 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

BULL!!

It will allow the state to confiscate your legally owned firearms with the simple statement from a dirty shrink, and an ignorant judge, even if there has never been any indication of "mental defect" in your life history..

4 posted on 12/22/2007 6:33:11 AM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
A do nothing Congress, with an 11% approval rating, passes another gun law that we don't need.

Yep, par for the course.

5.56mm

5 posted on 12/22/2007 6:33:37 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

If we had a conservative in the White House, we could expect a veto. We can’t expect a veto.


6 posted on 12/22/2007 6:35:03 AM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

Mentally ill liberal Democrats possessing enormous legislative power are a truly dangerous combination.

This bill is also known as the Veterans Disarmament Act in that a politically unfriendly physician can abrogate the gun rights of any of his patients by a finding of incipient mental illness or PTSD. In some states doctors are already reporting those who refuse to answer gun-related “health questionaires”.

Use the veto Force, Mr. President, use the veto Force!


7 posted on 12/22/2007 6:38:34 AM PST by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Schumer (D-N.Y.) said,... It will prevent gun sales to people who have no right to own one because of mental infirmity

Okay Chuckie, you and all your fellow 'liberal' Dem congress-critters have 24 hours to turn in all your guns as liberals are mentally ill.

8 posted on 12/22/2007 6:39:22 AM PST by Condor51 (I wouldn't vote for Rooty under any circumstance -- even if Waterboarded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
A do nothing Congress, with an 11% approval rating, passes another gun law that we don't need.

And the scumbags sneak it through while most of us are paying attention to getting ready for Christmas.

Typical.

What I want to know is the DETAILS.

You KNOW that anti-gun jackals like schumer and mccarthy will try and slip in any kind of Nazi-style anti-gun legislation they can get away with.

9 posted on 12/22/2007 6:39:50 AM PST by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

Has this broad done anything in congress except hide behind her dead husband?
Maybe she should think about how many would have died if law abiding people would have be able to carry handguns?


10 posted on 12/22/2007 6:40:29 AM PST by newnhdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

As time goes on it won’t take a shrink and a judge. Just the knowledge that you have ever taken anti-depressants, Ritalin, or any other med that might have an impact on depression, such as (legal) steroids will preclude you from buying a gun.

Then they will expand it to anyone who has ever been to a counselor for relationship issues or has been accused of a crime (already the case in some states).

This is the slippery slope that Chucky and friends have always wanted.


11 posted on 12/22/2007 6:42:35 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
The "best" part is that they passed it with only an unrecorded voice vote--in both houses!

That should not even be allowed--especially when you are taking away someone's right to self defense.

12 posted on 12/22/2007 6:42:48 AM PST by basil (Support the Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

I propose that any child who is currently taking drugs for ADD or ADHD be banned from buying guns when they come of age. The psychiatric community defines it as an illness and that’s good enough for the government. Gun elimination through “tagging”.


13 posted on 12/22/2007 6:43:50 AM PST by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

“Shall not be infringed”


14 posted on 12/22/2007 6:44:22 AM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

“Shall not be infringed”

Yeah, if only that old document by a bunch of dead white guys was still considered important.


15 posted on 12/22/2007 6:47:17 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

Another nail in our Bill of Rights...

What also is very disturbing, to me, is that this passed with no recorded vote (a unanimous consent procedure). When this last occurred on a similar proposal, I wrote to my Representative, Kirsten Gilliband, asking how she voted. I may die of old age before getting a reply.

We really need term limits.. we really need to get these people out of office.. we need to respect our Constitution and Bill of Rights!


16 posted on 12/22/2007 6:56:48 AM PST by Spottys Spurs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
"This simple but very important bill has been a long time coming. It will prevent gun sales to people who have no right to own one because of mental infirmity. This legislation will save lives." Of course, this anti-gun turd with the smarmy, sh*t-eating grin, KNOWS this law is nothing more than "feel-good" legislation, and that criminals and crazies will NOT be deterred from getting a firearm.

And when THIS law doesn't have the desired result (which is what they already KNOW)?

Well, as always, THEN, we'll need tougher and stronger anti-gun laws to solve the gun "problem".

Eventually, in their incessant march towards a total gun ban and confiscation, it'll be like Hitler's "Final Solution", except that, instead of humans in gas chambers (although I wouldn't put it past the likes of schumer wanting to put Christians, conservatives, gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters, etc, to death in such a way), it'll be OUR guns in smelters.

When our we going to say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

NO MORE infringements upon our 2nd Amendment rights.

Am I crazy for saying that?

If chuckie schumer (or any other of his left-wing, anti-gun, anti-freedom bureaucratic ilk), or some moonbat liberal shrink or judge, thinks so, then I lose my 2nd Amendment rights.

17 posted on 12/22/2007 6:57:23 AM PST by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
A do nothing Congress, with an 11% approval rating, passes another gun law that we don't need.

But, but the NRA supported this law. Even before "compromise" Senate amendments made it slightly less offensive.

18 posted on 12/22/2007 6:58:06 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DocH
Lest we forget...


19 posted on 12/22/2007 6:59:22 AM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DocH
REPOSTED:

shumer: "This simple but very important bill has been a long time coming. It will prevent gun sales to people who have no right to own one because of mental infirmity. This legislation will save lives."

Of course, this anti-gun turd with the smarmy, sh*t-eating grin, KNOWS this law is nothing more than "feel-good" legislation, and that criminals and crazies will NOT be deterred from getting a firearm.

And when THIS law doesn't have the desired result (which is what they already KNOW)?

Well, as always, THEN, we'll need tougher and stronger anti-gun laws to solve the gun "problem".

Eventually, in their incessant march towards a total gun ban and confiscation, it'll be like Hitler's "Final Solution", except that, instead of humans in gas chambers (although I wouldn't put it past the likes of schumer wanting to put Christians, conservatives, gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters, etc, to death in such a way), it'll be OUR guns in smelters.

When our we going to say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

NO MORE infringements upon our 2nd Amendment rights.

Am I crazy for saying that?

If chuckie schumer (or any other of his left-wing, anti-gun, anti-freedom bureaucratic ilk), or some moonbat liberal shrink or judge, thinks so, then I lose my 2nd Amendment rights.

20 posted on 12/22/2007 7:00:12 AM PST by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I have a great deal of difficulty in re-joining the NRA. More of our gun rights down the tube and the NRA was complicite in this!


21 posted on 12/22/2007 7:00:27 AM PST by Spottys Spurs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

In a statement, Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “This simple but very important bill has been a long time coming. It will prevent gun sales to people who have no right to own one because of mental infirmity. This legislation will save lives.”

Shumer you arrogant A$$, If I’m not mistaken obnoxious and illegal gun law already contributes substantially to death of common citizens, based on the numerous restrictions to gun purchases, waiting periods, and the general opinion of our news media, public servants, and local bureaucrats, ,that guns in the hands of the people on the front line of life, are the worst possible scenario.

Reality just might indicate, that faulty law, and gun free zones play a major role in the success of those bent on taking as many people with them when they have a suicidal urge. What a travesty, and mizz McCarthy who has made a career pandering to anti-gun nuts would have been rendered jobless if New York had not been dancing to the anti-gun orchestra for years.

Had anyone on that train been armed, or had the wisdom and courage of those aboard flight 93, Her husband and son might be alive today


22 posted on 12/22/2007 7:04:23 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
THERE'S the infamous schumer sh*t-eating grin.

That bastard NEVER saw a gun-control law he didn't like.

23 posted on 12/22/2007 7:05:43 AM PST by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
If we had a conservative in the White House, we could expect a veto.

Maybe, but with the NRA cheering the bill on, maybe not as well. As it is, everyone has "cover". The thing was passed without objection, just like the original Brady Bill. The President is a lame duck, so he has no incentive not to sign it. The original Brady Bill was passed under B.J. Clinton, and he was getting what he wanted, in more ways than one.

24 posted on 12/22/2007 7:05:54 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

“it won’t take a shrink and a judge (to end your gun rights)”

How about when they ID every FReeper by name & address? I mean, joining this website means you’re a menace to yourself and to society, isn’t that right?

I said, ISN’T THAT RIGHT, COMRADE!!?


25 posted on 12/22/2007 7:07:32 AM PST by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Well, I guess this means no guns for the admitted mentally ill Patrick Kennedy (and MANY other liberals like him who wear mental illness on their sleeves as a "badge of courage" for their fawning naive worshipers, and use it as an EXCUSE to do stupid, illegal things that would get the rest of us thrown in jail).

Oh, THAT'S right, he doesn't NEED his OWN guns, he's got his OWN body guards and security detail, and lives in a private gated community with 24/7/365 security.

26 posted on 12/22/2007 7:12:02 AM PST by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spottys Spurs

and the NRA was complicite in this!

Just one more reason I choose not to
be a member. Complicit certainly seems
to describe the NRA. 1968 gun control
law comes to mind. There is more.


27 posted on 12/22/2007 7:17:25 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Spottys Spurs

If all 80 million gunowners joined the NRA, we wouldn’t have to compromise.


28 posted on 12/22/2007 7:18:44 AM PST by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
She is projecting in "nanny" mode. She is reconciling her incident by burying everybody else's freedoms. She should not be there at all, she is only performing revenge, not "public service."

McCarthy, 54, spent most of her life as a nurse with no political ambitions. Then, in 1993, her husband was among six people killed during gunman Colin Ferguson's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road. Her son, shot in the head, was one of 19 wounded. While nursing him back from near-death, McCarthy began lobbying for gun control.

Her Washington aspirations took life after her congressman voted to repeal a ban on assault weapons. She was so mad she ran against him in 1996 and won his seat. This Sunday, her story is retold in a TV movie.

Well, if Hollywood thought it good enough for a TV movie, it must be Barf Alert material “fer sure.” Miz McCarthy goes to Washington to show those evil Second Amendment supporters "what for."

Scenario for justice? Lighting strikes twice. The son is gunned down directly in front of a former Concealed Carry Permit holder that had their government permit to exercise the Second Amendment pulled because he had no money to risk in an “appeal” when wrongly barred from carrying a firearm. His quote to her, "Sorry, I could have easily stopped that guy but the government took away my Second Amendment permit.

And here is how it will happen...

Negotiations had been ongoing to lift the block placed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). He had concerns that the legislation's new costs would not be offset by cuts in other programs and that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun.

This week Schumer and Coburn 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.

So, it one can not afford to loose all the monetary cost of mounting an appeal against a major government agency they loose their Government Permitted Second Amendment “Right.” They will run the risk of going into debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for trying to hang on to their "unalienable" Second Amendment Right.

Yea, that is just great, huh? Thank you Chucky and Carolyn for that step closer to Second American Revolution. And may the appropriate share of spilt blood be on their heads.

Non-thinking scum like her makes me realize their actually can be a use for a public Singapore style caning.

29 posted on 12/22/2007 7:31:57 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

From my cold, dead hands.....


30 posted on 12/22/2007 7:57:14 AM PST by proudofthesouth (Liberalism IS a mental illness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Sorry but I don’t think that the majority of Americans have either the guts or intellect for a second American Revolution.
31 posted on 12/22/2007 8:09:32 AM PST by proudofthesouth (Liberalism IS a mental illness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Congress toughens background checks for gun buyers....but not on illegals!!!!


32 posted on 12/22/2007 8:13:57 AM PST by nyyankeefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil
The "best" part is that they passed it with only an unrecorded voice vote--in both houses!

Even worse, in the Senate at least, it was passed "without objection", meaning without a vote at all. Of course that also means that if your Senator was on the floor, she should be fired for not objecting.

The House passed it under a voice vote suspension of the rules, and passed the earlier version by voice vote on June 13th. The Senate did it's "without objection" on December 19th, and then at 6:04 PM THE SAME DAY, Rep. McCarthy asked for acceptance of the Senate Amendment via Unanimous Consent, which she got. It's not clear how many representatives were even present. (The same is true in the Senate, and the only names that appear in the Congressional record on that issue are Scummy Schumer and Leaky Leahy, plus a "Madam President", so some female Senator was presiding. Although that same day Senators Byrd and Menendez did some of Kabuki dance over the funding for the war, so they may, or may not, have been present as well.

Where the H#)) were the Conservative Senators?

33 posted on 12/22/2007 8:19:04 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth
Sorry but I don’t think that the majority of Americans have either the guts or intellect for a second American Revolution.

It was not anywhere near a majority last time. And it would not take a majority either.

34 posted on 12/22/2007 8:19:38 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Spottys Spurs
I have a great deal of difficulty in re-joining the NRA.

FWIW, I just renewed for 5 years. I'm old enough that getting a Life membership at this point doesn't seem cost effective. Unless I live to 90 or so. Possible, my grandfather lived to 99. But there is Alzheimer's on my fathers side (a lot of it), so even though I might be alive, I'd likely not care about much of anything. :)

35 posted on 12/22/2007 8:22:28 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
If all 80 million gunowners joined the NRA, we wouldn’t have to compromise.

We don't NEED to compromise, we choose to.

I just renewed for 5 years.

36 posted on 12/22/2007 8:25:31 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

What if you take thyroid medication?


37 posted on 12/22/2007 8:31:05 AM PST by wastedyears ("I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spottys Spurs

I received this email from the NRA 2 days ago. Wish I hadn’t have renewed my membership.

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act
After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following:

Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for NICS checks.

Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed “strong concerns” over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.

Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.

Prevents use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be “mentally defective,” a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.

Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:

Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.

Requires agencies to create “relief from disabilities” programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.

Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.

Allows awards of attorney’s fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency’s denial of relief in court.

Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health “adjudication” or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.

Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state “relief from disabilities” programs.

Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.

www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative

Write The Media

Get Involved Locally

Register To Vote

Contribute

Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030


38 posted on 12/22/2007 8:33:30 AM PST by panaxanax (Ronald Reagan would vote for Duncan Hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TLI
McCarthy, 54, spent most of her life as a nurse with no political ambitions. Then, in 1993, her husband was among six people killed during gunman Colin Ferguson's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road. Her son, shot in the head, was one of 19 wounded. While nursing him back from near-death, McCarthy began lobbying for gun control. Her Washington aspirations took life after her congressman voted to repeal a ban on assault weapons. She was so mad she ran against him in 1996 and won his seat.

I recall her decision to run and her campaign very well. She claimed to have been a lifelong Republican, and the only reason she switched over to the Democrat Party was because of the gun control issue. She claimed to still agree with the Republicans on all issues except gun control.

Several weeks later I watched her on the news as she slammed the Republicans on Medicare/Social security and she mouthed words and phrases that were right out of the liberal Democrat handbook of propoganda. Republicans are cruel, cold, heartless, wanting to throw senior citizens out on the streets, take away their SS checks, etc.

Her liberal democrat rating from the ADA has hovered around 85-100 percent from year to year.

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=26978&type=category&category=45

When she first ran, her Republican opponent really didnt hardly bother to fight for the seat. He didnt bother to start to campaign untill September. Only 2 months before election day (whereas McCarthy got her campaign off the ground in March), and even then he hardly showed up for anything. He would duck out of scheduled debates with her, and wouldnt show up for some scheduled campaign functions as well.

Over the years, registered Republican voters have been fleeing the state, taking their votes with them. As a result, making once safe Republican districts like hers into Democrat districts.

39 posted on 12/22/2007 8:37:03 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
If someone is so dangerous that, if allowed to purchase a gun at retail, the person would do so and use it to commit murder, that person is too dangerous to be allowed on the street, period.

While it is true that there has no doubt been a long history of removing weapons (including sharp objects) from people, this has always implied locking people up unless they could be trusted not to go to any particular length to acquire the weapons in question. Legislation like this nonsense is neither necessary for people who wouldn't seek out weapons, nor is it sufficient to deal with those who would.

40 posted on 12/22/2007 8:38:10 AM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

NRA = Negotiating Rights Away


41 posted on 12/22/2007 8:45:13 AM PST by Domandred (Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

WHY DO THEY WANT OUR GUNS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4


42 posted on 12/22/2007 9:21:02 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panaxanax
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House,

But the NRA was supporting the House passed version. Now they tout the improvements. From what they say about "addressing the concerns" of Senator Coburn, and the fact that Coburn is mentioned on the GOA site well before the improvements were made, I wonder how much, if any of the improvements were at the NRA's behest, and how many were due to the GOA, and all the folks who pinged their Senators on the issue?

43 posted on 12/22/2007 10:29:36 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

Oh please, he has cowered Congress. Don’t you know anything? /s

Just ask the folks who expected to see a border fence built. They’ll vouch for this. /s


44 posted on 12/22/2007 10:40:56 AM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
I hate these people.

FMCDH(BITS)

45 posted on 12/22/2007 11:52:54 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spottys Spurs
I have a great deal of difficulty in re-joining the NRA. More of our gun rights down the tube and the NRA was complicite in this!

The NRA supported the 1934 and 1968 victim disarmament acts. IIRC, they also supported the '86 one, though I could be wrong about that. 

46 posted on 12/22/2007 1:57:08 PM PST by zeugma (Hillary! - America's Ex-Wife!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
How much more proof do we need that washington needs to be nuked from orbit, just to be sure that every last one of them is no longer a threat to our lives, liberty, or property?
47 posted on 12/22/2007 1:59:15 PM PST by zeugma (Hillary! - America's Ex-Wife!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
LOL. Actually, I meant for that last comment to go to this thread: Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) gets $1 million in earmarks.

 This one will do as well I suppose.

48 posted on 12/22/2007 2:02:09 PM PST by zeugma (Hillary! - America's Ex-Wife!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Click Here

49 posted on 12/22/2007 2:13:31 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
It's hard to believe that no recorded votes were taken in passing this important legislation.

Exactly who is "representing" us if legislation can be passed which can be attributed to virtually no one but its author and its cosponsors? It is troubling that no other representatives or senators can be held accountable for this legislation.

For record, the House co-sponsors were:

Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 6/11/2007
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 6/11/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 6/11/2007
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 6/11/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 6/13/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 6/11/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 6/11/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 6/11/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 6/11/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 6/11/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 6/11/2007
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 6/13/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 6/11/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 6/11/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 6/12/2007
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 6/11/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 6/11/2007

In the Senate, it is clear that Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer, who authored the Senate amendment, can also be held responsible for this bill.

50 posted on 12/22/2007 3:18:12 PM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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