On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:45:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member


So if they pull your guns, then you will also have no problem with
them also removing your first amendment rights.

So, you're in favor of arming mental defectives and psychotics, eh?

Im quite in favor of a court hearing and a judgment from them and a
panel of professionals, then a court order being the arbiter.

You evidently are in favor of having your rights removed by fiat and a
phone call, ne?

Gunner

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article 4t8Li.5$R%1.0@trndny06, "cncfixxer1"
wrote:


A good example today is the "War". Check your Constriction and read
what
is required for a war to be declared. Yet we follow lock stepped because
the whole Iraq fiasco is called a "War" when it does not meet the
Constitutional criteria to be a legal war

Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to carry out
military
operations against Iraq. What more do you want?

If the Constitution were followed we would never had Vietnam.

What does our Constitution say about war?

Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given
the
power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war.
What
that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot
legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration
of
war against that nation from Congress.

This nonsense is based on a complete misunderstanding of what a
declaration of
war is, and is not. It is not an authorization to wage war. It is nothing
more
or less than a formal acknowledgment of a condition that _already_exists_.

Excerpts from President Roosevelt's address to the nation on 8 Dec 1941:
"As
commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures
be
taken for our defense... Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the
fact
that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. ...
I
ask that Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack
by
Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United
States
and the Japanese empire."

Recognition of an already-existing condition.

And Roosevelt was acting perfectly within his Constitutional authority, in
directing the armed forces to respond to the attack BEFORE Congress issued
the
declaration of war.

You could benefit from reading this:
http://abcdunlimited.com/liberty/rants/war.html

You could also benefit from reading the Constitution -- you might learn
that
individual *states* are permitted to engage in war without the consent of
Congress. (Under limited circumstances, of course.)

The idea that the consent of Congress is required to engage in any act of
war
is completely without Constitutional or historical support.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Geez Doug, thanks for pointing out my cable box is broke again. I hate it
when Congress declares an act of war and I miss it.

You are obviously one of the "same as" people that will on day have Uncle
Sam counting the amount of sheets of toliet paper via closed circuit TV and
wonder where your liberty went

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:26:27 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:17:15 -0700, "azotic"
wrote:

Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.
===========
The Senate is smarter than I gave them credit for.

If I was a Senator I would not want people running around loose
with guns either, any more than if I were a deer.....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Just wanted to share with the group the exceptionally well
written, insightful, and articulate response I received to my
above comment by email.
--------------------------

George,

You really are a ****in asshole.

Tom Miller

----- Original Message ----- From: "F. George McDuffee"

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: OT-Veterans Disarmament Act H.R. 2640


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:45:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member


So if they pull your guns, then you will also have no problem with
them also removing your first amendment rights.

So, you're in favor of arming mental defectives and psychotics, eh?

Im quite in favor of a court hearing and a judgment from them and a
panel of professionals, then a court order being the arbiter.

You evidently are in favor of having your rights removed by fiat and a
phone call, ne?

What "fiat"? Someone who is "adjudicated as a mental defective," and who is
thereby restricted in some action and who objects, is going to have the
decision made by a court in every state. If they don't object, they could be
adjudicated by a board or commission. If they decide later that they object
(possibly because they don't mind being declared mentally unable to care for
themselves but who think they shouldn't be denied purchase of a gun, then
the courts have to decide what constitutes mental defect. The definitions,
as often happens, will be decided by case law. In other words, the person
will get his court hearing.

Those adjudications generally fall into three categories: criminal cases,
which are already based on a trial; control of one's estate, in which a
court makes the decision if there is an objection by the restricted person;
and confinement to a mental institution, which, in every state, requires a
court hearing if the restricted person objects.

In other words, some board or committee may declare a person mentally
incompetent, but a court has to seal the deal unless the affected person
does not object.

If you're saying that it has to go through the courts even if the person
didn't object, then you're saying that mental defectives should have guns as
long as they don't let their case go to trial. In other words, if they're
declared mentally incompetent by a state mental health board and if they
don't object to the decision.

Great logic, Gunner. It's almost as good as skipping background checks at
gun shows. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Just wanted to share with the group the exceptionally well
written, insightful, and articulate response I received to my
above comment by email.
--------------------------

George,

You really are a ****in asshole.

Tom Miller



Golly.

Some people as just so "expressive" if they don't agree with you.

Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:1190947733.432683.273210
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

LOL...sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we test the sitting President first?

And his Vice President next?

By the time the legislation passed, somebody will have those jobs...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...

"Eregon" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote in
news:1190947733.432683.273210
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

LOL...sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we test the sitting President first?

And his Vice President next?

By the time the legislation passed, somebody will have those jobs...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally
Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to
function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...

But we'd be paying to institutionalize the whole lot of them! I don't think
that's a good idea. It could get expensive.

--
Ed Huntress

In article Q%bLi.100$Hb2.2@trndny07, "cncfixxer1" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article 4t8Li.5$R%1.0@trndny06, "cncfixxer1"
wrote:


A good example today is the "War". Check your Constriction and read
what
is required for a war to be declared. Yet we follow lock stepped because
the whole Iraq fiasco is called a "War" when it does not meet the
Constitutional criteria to be a legal war

Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to carry out military
operations against Iraq. What more do you want?

If the Constitution were followed we would never had Vietnam.

What does our Constitution say about war?

Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the
power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What
that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot
legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of
war against that nation from Congress.

This nonsense is based on a complete misunderstanding of what a declaration of
war is, and is not. It is not an authorization to wage war. It is nothing more
or less than a formal acknowledgment of a condition that _already_exists_.

Excerpts from President Roosevelt's address to the nation on 8 Dec 1941: "As
commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be
taken for our defense... Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact
that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. ... I
ask that Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by
Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States
and the Japanese empire."

Recognition of an already-existing condition.

And Roosevelt was acting perfectly within his Constitutional authority, in
directing the armed forces to respond to the attack BEFORE Congress issued the
declaration of war.

You could benefit from reading this:
http://abcdunlimited.com/liberty/rants/war.html

You could also benefit from reading the Constitution -- you might learn that
individual *states* are permitted to engage in war without the consent of
Congress. (Under limited circumstances, of course.)

The idea that the consent of Congress is required to engage in any act of war
is completely without Constitutional or historical support.

Geez Doug, thanks for pointing out my cable box is broke again. I hate it
when Congress declares an act of war and I miss it.

I never said they did. Obviously you didn't understand anything of what I
wrote above. Read it again, this time for comprehension.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Eregon" wrote in message
...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally
Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to
function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...

But we'd be paying to institutionalize the whole lot of them! I don't think
that's a good idea. It could get expensive.

It would cost us a helluva lot less than those monkeys are costing us NOW.

Somebody once proposed that we raise the salaries of members of Congress to
$1M/year each, on the condition that they stay out of Washington permanently.

$535M annually to keep those jokers at home would be a bargain.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:32:11
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:45:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member


So if they pull your guns, then you will also have no problem with
them also removing your first amendment rights.

So, you're in favor of arming mental defectives and psychotics, eh?

Im quite in favor of a court hearing and a judgment from them and a
panel of professionals, then a court order being the arbiter.

You evidently are in favor of having your rights removed by fiat and a
phone call, ne?

I don't know about him, but I'd be all in favor of revoking his
rights, based on what I feel should be his proper behavior.

Save for that old saying about "sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander."

toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

Gunner wrote:

Got Rope?

Got chain, might be messy but these things tend to be.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Also, there is a hint in that article that GOA may be the source of the
neurotic freak who wrote the nonsense that started this thread.


There is that indication on a few gun boards.

Wes

Q. How do you know when a politician is lying?

A. When isn't he?

On Sep 28, 1:51 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:26:27 -0500, F. George McDuffee





wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:17:15 -0700, "azotic"
wrote:

Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.
===========
The Senate is smarter than I gave them credit for.

If I was a Senator I would not want people running around loose
with guns either, any more than if I were a deer.....

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============

Just wanted to share with the group the exceptionally well
written, insightful, and articulate response I received to my
above comment by email.
--------------------------

George,

You really are a ****in asshole.

Tom Miller



----- Original Message ----- From: "F. George McDuffee"


Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: OT-Veterans Disarmament Act H.R. 2640

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...he misspelled "****in"...proof that the "No Child Left Behind"
program is definitely still needed.

Geez...you would think with "gun" starting with a "g" that he would
have gotten it right.

Remind me to make sure that spelling is included in the psych test
that the Government administers for determining whether the applicant
should own a gun..

TMT

On Sep 28, 2:13 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:1190947733.432683.273210
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

LOL...sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we test the sitting President first?

And his Vice President next?

By the time the legislation passed, somebody will have those jobs...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...

Actually I think having psych tests of all political candidates and
make the results public.

That would be interesting.

TMT

On Sep 28, 2:23 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Eregon" wrote in message

...





Too_Many_Tools wrote in
news:1190947733.432683.273210
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

LOL...sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we test the sitting President first?

And his Vice President next?

By the time the legislation passed, somebody will have those jobs...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally
Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to
function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...

But we'd be paying to institutionalize the whole lot of them! I don't think
that's a good idea. It could get expensive.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would put them in uniform and send them to Iraq for the front lines.

TMT

Actually I think having psych tests of all political candidates and
make the results public.

That would be interesting.

TMT

I.Q test score would also be helpfull.

Psych and I.Q. test scores should be printed on balots next to the
candidates name. A mandatory appearence on who's smarter than
a 5th grader would be more informative than the current debates.

Best Regards
Tom.

Eregon wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:1190947733.432683.273210
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

LOL...sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we test the sitting President first?

And his Vice President next?

By the time the legislation passed, somebody will have those jobs...

A better solution would be to Certify all politicians as Criminally Insane... This would, of
course, mean that the gummints - at all levels - would be unable to function since there'd
be nobody to authorize the spending of any monies...


WRONG!!! You declare them all illegal aliens, and deport them.



--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

azotic wrote:

Actually I think having psych tests of all political candidates and
make the results public.

That would be interesting.

TMT

I.Q test score would also be helpfull.

Psych and I.Q. test scores should be printed on balots next to the
candidates name. A mandatory appearence on who's smarter than
a 5th grader would be more informative than the current debates.

Best Regards
Tom.


Along with the mandatory spell checker?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:31 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member


So if they pull your guns, then you will also have no problem with
them also removing your first amendment rights.

In fact...given a number of your posts...its obvious you cant post
responsibly.

Good to see a Doctor can remove your Constitutional Rights at his
whim.

He's as good an NRA member as Michael Moore, who got a membership just
to be able to say he was one.

Now please stop feeding the trolls.


But!!! But!! It is an Ex-Lax pie!


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Also, there is a hint in that article that GOA may be the source of the
neurotic freak who wrote the nonsense that started this thread.

There is that indication on a few gun boards.

Wes

Q. How do you know when a politician is lying?



A. When he or she has been dead over a decade. Same as all the other
lawyers.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 26, 8:17 pm, "azotic" wrote:
Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.

Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member
==========
Actually I think this should be expanded. To *VOTE* you must
qualify to own a gun.

This is not to say you must actually own one, but must pass all
the qualifications. If your mental condition, etc. is not good
enough for gun ownership, then no franchise.

It is clear that far more damage is now being done with ballots
than bullets.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:31:56 -0400, Wes wrote:

Q. How do you know when a politician is lying?

A. When isn't he
=============
A. When you can see their lips moving, e.g. Il Duce on gun
ownership and the 2nd. Amendment.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Actually I think this should be expanded. To *VOTE* you must
qualify to own a gun.

This is not to say you must actually own one, but must pass all
the qualifications. If your mental condition, etc. is not good
enough for gun ownership, then no franchise.

It is clear that far more damage is now being done with ballots
than bullets.


You nailed it!

On Sep 29, 12:26 am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:47:40 -0700, Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:17 pm, "azotic" wrote:
Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.

Good....I have always maintained that a psych test should be the
requirement for gun purchasing and for continued gun ownership.

If you have the right to own a gun, you also have the responsibility
to use it properly...no excuses.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, you have no right to own a
gun.

TMT..a card carrying NRA member

==========
Actually I think this should be expanded. To *VOTE* you must
qualify to own a gun.

This is not to say you must actually own one, but must pass all
the qualifications. If your mental condition, etc. is not good
enough for gun ownership, then no franchise.

It is clear that far more damage is now being done with ballots
than bullets.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is a good idea.

TMT

On Sep 26, 7:17 pm, "azotic" wrote:
Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.

I don't think you have read the text of the bill.

HR2640 not only does not prohibit veterans and children with the
conditions quoted, it does provide a means by which those previously
prevented from buying firearms may have their disqualifications
removed.

What most of you idiots fail to notice is the very clear distinction
between "diagnosed" (which is not a disqualification) and
"adjudicated" (which is and has been a disqualification for many
years).

No change there. So much for the crap about Vets being disqualified.
It just ain't true.

Being diagnosed will not bar anyone from legally buying a gun. Period.

The text of HR 2640 can be found he http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:33:00 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"azotic" wrote in message
Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA
program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire
gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a
Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Tom, you may be interested in what the NRA/ILA has to say about this bill:

"The new version of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (H.R. 2640) would
require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for
use in NICS. It would also provide financial incentives to states to do the
same, by rewarding states that provide records to NICS and penalizing those
that refuse to do so over an extended period of time.

"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would "prohibit"
thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would
only enforce current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some
people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights
restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system."

Which brings up the question, which of the "pro-gun groups" did you
get your information from? It also raises another question: why did you
believe them without first reading the bill?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640


I guess we need smarter activists. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:33:00 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"azotic" wrote in message
Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA
program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire
gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a
Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Tom, you may be interested in what the NRA/ILA has to say about this
bill:

"The new version of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (H.R. 2640) would
require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for
use in NICS. It would also provide financial incentives to states to do
the
same, by rewarding states that provide records to NICS and penalizing
those
that refuse to do so over an extended period of time.

"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would "prohibit"
thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would
only enforce current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some
people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights
restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system."

Which brings up the question, which of the "pro-gun groups" did you
get your information from? It also raises another question: why did you
believe them without first reading the bill?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640


I guess we need smarter activists. ;-)

Or maybe more mentally stable ones. Those GOA leaders are paranoid freaks.

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 1, 1:22 pm, wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:17 pm, "azotic" wrote:

Senate wants to disarm vets.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun
collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare
home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Best Regards

Tom.

I don't think you have read the text of the bill.

HR2640 not only does not prohibit veterans and children with the
conditions quoted, it does provide a means by which those previously
prevented from buying firearms may have their disqualifications
removed.

What most of you idiots fail to notice is the very clear distinction
between "diagnosed" (which is not a disqualification) and
"adjudicated" (which is and has been a disqualification for many
years).

No change there. So much for the crap about Vets being disqualified.
It just ain't true.

Being diagnosed will not bar anyone from legally buying a gun. Period.

The text of HR 2640 can be found hehttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640

Finally someone who gets it.

Yes...the OP was trying a red herring....a typical conservative play.

He likely is worried about losing his guns...for good reason.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...


Yes...the OP was trying a red herring....a typical conservative play.

He likely is worried about losing his guns...for good reason.

TMT


You have no right to own a gun DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Richard Daley of chicago
said so. Just ask him and he will gladly expain it to you.
Washington D.C. DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Adrian M. Fenty agrees with
with fellow DEMOCRATS you have no right to own a gun. Birds of a feather
conspire together. The sponsor of the bill DEMOCRAT Senator Chuck Schumer
also agrees you have no right to own a gun. My only worry is a DEMOCRAT
will confiscate guns in america.

Best Regards
Tom.

azotic wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...


Yes...the OP was trying a red herring....a typical conservative play.

He likely is worried about losing his guns...for good reason.

TMT



You have no right to own a gun DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Richard Daley of chicago
said so. Just ask him and he will gladly expain it to you.
Washington D.C. DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Adrian M. Fenty agrees with
with fellow DEMOCRATS you have no right to own a gun. Birds of a feather
conspire together. The sponsor of the bill DEMOCRAT Senator Chuck Schumer
also agrees you have no right to own a gun. My only worry is a DEMOCRAT
will confiscate guns in america.

Best Regards
Tom.






Tom???

On Oct 2, 9:14 pm, "azotic" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

oups.com...



Yes...the OP was trying a red herring....a typical conservative play.

He likely is worried about losing his guns...for good reason.

TMT

You have no right to own a gun DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Richard Daley of chicago
said so. Just ask him and he will gladly expain it to you.
Washington D.C. DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Adrian M. Fenty agrees with
with fellow DEMOCRATS you have no right to own a gun. Birds of a feather
conspire together. The sponsor of the bill DEMOCRAT Senator Chuck Schumer
also agrees you have no right to own a gun. My only worry is a DEMOCRAT
will confiscate guns in america.

Best Regards
Tom.

Oh BS.

Instead of worrying about the Democrat boogy man why don't you take a
look at the Patriot Act laws that Bush has.

Guns...and people disappear...without a trace.

THAT I have a problem with.

TMT

You have no right to own a gun DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Richard Daley of chicago
said so. Just ask him and he will gladly expain it to you.
Washington D.C. DEMOCRATIC MAYOR Adrian M. Fenty agrees with
with fellow DEMOCRATS you have no right to own a gun. Birds of a feather
conspire together. The sponsor of the bill DEMOCRAT Senator Chuck Schumer
also agrees you have no right to own a gun. My only worry is a DEMOCRAT
will confiscate guns in america.

Best Regards
Tom.

Oh BS.

Instead of worrying about the Democrat boogy man why don't you take a
look at the Patriot Act laws that Bush has.

Guns...and people disappear...without a trace.

THAT I have a problem with.

TMT


There is no democrat boogy man, they display thier intent publicly with
every gun law they pass.

Best Regards
Tom.

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Tom???


Tom Azotic.

Best Regards
Tom.

azotic wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Tom???



Tom Azotic.

Best Regards
Tom.




No, Tom.

Bringing this gibberish in here - especially with this thread name -
is NOT Best Regards.

Maybe you missed my 9/28 post?



Richard