PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul introduces HR 2613 to Repeal the GFSZA


Southwest Chuck
07-24-2011, 2:21 PM
One of the fine folks over at the MD Shooters 2A Forum (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=62277) Posted this today:

Representative Ron Paul from Texas introduced HR 2613 on July 21, 2011. If passed, it would completely repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. As you know, the Fed GFSZA effectively prohibits all forms of unlicensed carry, and does not recognize concealed carry reciprocity agreements between states. It is currently a federal felony for any person to travel armed on public sidewalks, roads, or highways which pass within 1000 feet of any K-12 school's property line, unless they have a CCW physically issued by the state that school is in. The vast number of schools in developed areas effectively turns them into giant gun free zones. This bill would fix the problem! PLEASE contact your representatives and urge them to support HR 2613.


H.R. 2613: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2613)
***************

I think we all need to support this and call our representatives and urge them to support and/or co-sponsor this bill.

Yugo
07-24-2011, 2:25 PM
:clap::clap::clap: will be calling soon.

safewaysecurity
07-24-2011, 2:29 PM
No point in me calling Garamendi represents my district

sholling
07-24-2011, 2:32 PM
I'll call Congressman Jerry Lewis on Monday.

Blackhawk556
07-24-2011, 2:55 PM
Do you think Obama will sign this?

safewaysecurity
07-24-2011, 2:59 PM
Do you think Obama will sign this?

HEEEEYELLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. But maybe if it was part of another bill. Maybe they could include it with HR 822 in the debt ceiling raise :D

Maestro Pistolero
07-24-2011, 3:15 PM
As much as I agree with it, this doesn't strike me as the best move for a presidential candidate.

VegasND
07-24-2011, 3:16 PM
I hope this passes.

Yugo
07-24-2011, 3:20 PM
+1 on the hope but for the most part, most of us are realists and this does NOT sound realistic living in todays socialist state.

The Shadow
07-24-2011, 4:23 PM
That's great, but will it have any effect on 626.9 ? Probably not.

Connor P Price
07-24-2011, 4:37 PM
Gun Free School Zone- actually sounds pretty good right? It would be nice if our nations schools were free of violence from guns. That's exactly the amount of critical thinking you will get from the average congressperson and average voter.

They will never think about it on a deep enough level to realize that it effectively bans carry in entire urban areas, they'll never realize that it does nothing to protect children and if anything puts them in greater danger. The GFSZ will have to go down through the courts.

FatalKitty
07-24-2011, 4:44 PM
all the GFSZA does is change the expression from "fish in a barrel" to "kids in a schoolyard"

rivraton
07-24-2011, 5:11 PM
HEEEEYELLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. But maybe if it was part of another bill. Maybe they could include it with HR 822 in the debt ceiling raise :D.
How about sticking Federal Constitutional Carry in there!:D

htjyang
07-24-2011, 5:54 PM
One might term this the “Embody maneuver”, named after our recently departed member (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448) to denote anything intended to create a lot of noise but whose results are likely to be negative.

First, as anyone with the weakest link to reality realizes, this legislation, even if it passes the House, has no chance of passing the Senate, much less be signed into law.

Second, I can hear the Democratic propaganda already:

At a time when the country faces bankruptcy, when seniors may starve because House Republicans refuse to send them their Social Security checks, the Republicans have introduced legislation to allow heavily armed criminals into our schools....

In other words, this sounds like exactly the kind of thing a libertarian presidential candidate desperate to attract his usual 0.5% of the popular vote is likely to engage in.

There are far more important and realistic things for 2nd Amendment-supporting Congressmen to vote for. National carry reciprocity easily comes to mind. There may come a time when the nation (though more likely, the courts) is ready to repeal legislation like the GFSZA. This is not the time, and pro-2nd Amendment Congressmen should not waste their political capital on this stunt.

jl123
07-24-2011, 6:06 PM
One might term this the “Embody maneuver”, named after our recently departed member (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448) to denote anything intended to create a lot of noise but whose results are likely to be negative.

First, as anyone with the weakest link to reality realizes, this legislation, even if it passes the House, has no chance of passing the Senate, much less be signed into law.

Second, I can hear the Democratic propaganda already:



In other words, this sounds like exactly the kind of thing a libertarian presidential candidate desperate to attract his usual 0.5% of the popular vote is likely to engage in.

There are far more important and realistic things for 2nd Amendment-supporting Congressmen to vote for. National carry reciprocity easily comes to mind. There may come a time when the nation (though more likely, the courts) is ready to repeal legislation like the GFSZA. This is not the time, and pro-2nd Amendment Congressmen should not waste their political capital on this stunt.

He's running as a Republican...not a Libertarian........just like last time.

htjyang
07-24-2011, 6:09 PM
He's running as a Republican...not a Libertarian........just like last time.

I'm aware of that, which is why I used the lowercase "l." His party registration doesn't change the fact that his primary base of supporters come from that tiny segment of the population.

SickofSoCal
07-24-2011, 6:14 PM
I'm aware of that, which is why I used the lowercase "l." His party registration doesn't change the fact that his primary base of supporters come from that tiny segment of the population.

so, you don't like minorities?

htjyang
07-24-2011, 6:21 PM
so, you don't like minorities?

I don't like a self-important minority that seems incapable of strategic thinking, refuses to recognize political realities, and is so intolerant of those who simply wish to advance liberty at a more realistic pace than they do that they will slander those who should be their allies as traitors to the cause or statist thugs. Anybody familiar with Ron Paul and his band of Paulestinians know what I'm talking about.

Wolverine
07-24-2011, 6:27 PM
I think amending the GFSZA to allow for reciprocity between states and only requiring licenses if the state requires one would be easier to pass and effectively accomplish the same thing.

nicki
07-24-2011, 7:13 PM
While this bill may go nowhere and ultimately the Gun Free 1000 ft school zones will probably be thrown out by the courts, what it does is draw a line in the sand so to speak.

If the Fed gun free zone was 100 percent enforced, that would mean that any time we travel to another state and carry in a "gun free zone", even if we have a CCW permit, we are violating the "Law".

Imagine you are in another state on vacation, carrying a gun on your CCW permit and you while you are driving through a intersection a drunk driver drives through a red light and hits you.

You get taken to the hospital, your gun is found and you were within a 1000 ft of a school zone. The fed prosecutor gets notified and you are arrested.

Of course with heavy enforcement, we suddenly see all these CCW holders being convicted of "Felonies".

I am glad "Ron Paul" is standing up, we will find out how many others will also stand up. Great thing to stick on the budget bill btw.:43:

Nicki

J.D.Allen
07-24-2011, 7:15 PM
He's running as a Republican...not a Libertarian........just like last time.

Not to completely derail the thread, but I think his positions on abortion and border security make him more akin to a republican than a true libertarian...

jl123
07-24-2011, 7:41 PM
Not to completely derail the thread, but I think his positions on abortion and border security make him more akin to a republican than a true libertarian...

You'll find a lot of disagreement in the libertarian camp on abortion actually, but I agree with you about his stance on border security.

Slim Jim
07-24-2011, 7:41 PM
As much as I want this law taken off the books, the law is currently written so as to make getting a conviction almost impossible. When they re-wrote the law they added the part about interfering with foreign or interstate commerce as a requisite for violation.

Does anyone have any info about anyone being convicted of the statute AFTER it was rewritten ?

Luieburger
07-24-2011, 7:55 PM
Not to completely derail the thread, but I think his positions on abortion and border security make him more akin to a republican than a true libertarian...

That's why he is more electable than a true libertarian.

oni.dori
07-24-2011, 10:52 PM
While I know that this has little to no chance of going anywhere, I am glad to see someone standing up to all of the bull sh*t.

bwiese
07-25-2011, 2:19 AM
One might term this the “Embody maneuver”, named after our recently departed member (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448) to denote anything intended to create a lot of noise but whose results are likely to be negative.

First, as anyone with the weakest link to reality realizes, this legislation, even if it passes the House, has no chance of passing the Senate, much less be signed into law.

Second, I can hear the Democratic propaganda already: <snip>

In other words, this sounds like exactly the kind of thing a libertarian presidential candidate desperate to attract his usual 0.5% of the popular vote is likely to engage in.

There are far more important and realistic things for 2nd Amendment-supporting Congressmen to vote for. National carry reciprocity easily comes to mind. There may come a time when the nation (though more likely, the courts) is ready to repeal legislation like the GFSZA. This is not the time, and pro-2nd Amendment Congressmen should not waste their political capital on this stunt.


Wow! Somebody has been cloning my thoughts via remote brain imaging.

Very, very well put.

This is a pure feel-good window-dressing swan song.

Yes, it'd be nice if it passes. <insert dream sequence music....>

No, it's the wrong time and place and there are more achievable things to work on right now.

If Ron Paul is so pro-gun, why can't he do something useful for us?

Get3CoffinsReady
07-25-2011, 3:23 AM
Wow! Somebody has been cloning my thoughts via remote brain imaging.

Very, very well put.

This is a pure feel-good window-dressing swan song.

Yes, it'd be nice if it passes. <insert dream sequence music....>

No, it's the wrong time and place and there are more achievable things to work on right now.

If Ron Paul is so pro-gun, why can't he do something useful for us?

Well what would you suggest?

GettoPhilosopher
07-25-2011, 4:09 AM
As much as I want this law taken off the books, the law is currently written so as to make getting a conviction almost impossible. When they re-wrote the law they added the part about interfering with foreign or interstate commerce as a requisite for violation.

Does anyone have any info about anyone being convicted of the statute AFTER it was rewritten ?

I mistakenly thought similar, and got slapped down by Bweise. :)

"(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

The gun merely has to have moved in interstate commerce. I guess if you had a firearm made entirely in CA that had never crossed state lines, you might have a defense. Then again, i wouldn't want to be the one on the stand arguing whether or not the accessories count.

Wikipedia actually has a fairly good list of convictions upheld on appeal post-rewrite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

anthonyca
07-25-2011, 7:05 AM
As much as I want this law taken off the books, the law is currently written so as to make getting a conviction almost impossible. When they re-wrote the law they added the part about interfering with foreign or interstate commerce as a requisite for violation.

Does anyone have any info about anyone being convicted of the statute AFTER it was rewritten ?

Any federal law is enforceable thanks to this crap decision by a stacked court. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111

The court ruled that wheat grown on a farmers land, that never left the land, affected interstate commerce because the farmer added to the nations wheat supply and didn't have to buy more wheat.

I didn't know that an out of state CCW did not exempt one from the FGFSZ act. Just another one to add the the felonies people commit with out knowing. There was a thread about people becoming unwitting felons and some member jumped all over me for stating that there was such a thing. I'll bet many of them had out of state CCWs.

ubet
07-25-2011, 7:09 AM
If memory serves me, no one has been convicted on this. And as stated, their is a clause that you have to know, or have reason to believe you are in a school zone.

Maestro Pistolero
07-25-2011, 9:11 AM
Even if this were successful (highly doubtful), there are still state laws like the one that ensnared Theseus. In all this time he hasn't been charged with a federal violation. Like most any real protection, this needs to come from the courts.

Uxi
07-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Would love it. But unfortunately don't think it has much of a chance to pass and wouldn't affect us anyway thanks to our own law from the PRK.

Coded-Dude
07-25-2011, 11:51 AM
This can't be true....Ron Paul has done nothing for this country but speak eloquently to the younger crowd.


On a serious note, I think its a great idea that should be implemented. however, i think will only make more states create their own GFSZ laws(like we have here in CA).

Full Clip
07-25-2011, 11:53 AM
+1 on the hope but for the most part, most of us are realists and this does NOT sound realistic living in todays socialist state.

Forget about Obama. I can't think of any president of the past 30 years who would sign this. Let a dated law sunset? Yes. Sign? No.

WeThePeople
07-25-2011, 4:55 PM
Wow! Somebody has been cloning my thoughts via remote brain imaging.

Very, very well put.

This is a pure feel-good window-dressing swan song.

Yes, it'd be nice if it passes. <insert dream sequence music....>

No, it's the wrong time and place and there are more achievable things to work on right now.

If Ron Paul is so pro-gun, why can't he do something useful for us?

Why is this bad? Don't you want Congress repealing existing bad laws instead of passing new bad laws?

Also, Obama does not need to sign the law if a veto-proof majority of Congress votes for it. In an election cycle, many Congress-critters don't want a disarmist vote on his/her record.

Come on, Bill. It's okay to say something nice about RP once a year. It won't hurt. :)

boxbro
07-25-2011, 5:19 PM
Well what would you suggest?

I second that question.

jaandrade3rd
08-30-2011, 11:04 AM
This item status is still "Referred to Committee". I wonded if three times the charm will move this bill forward seeing how it died as H.R. 2424 in 2007/2008 and H.R. 3021 in 2009/2010. In 2009 it made it to the "Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security." Or, maybe in 2013/2014 it will make it to House vote--but Ron Paul is retiring. Who will carry the torch?

bwiese
08-30-2011, 11:10 AM
One might term this the “Embody maneuver”, named after our recently departed member (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448) to denote anything intended to create a lot of noise but whose results are likely to be negative.

First, as anyone with the weakest link to reality realizes, this legislation, even if it passes the House, has no chance of passing the Senate, much less be signed into law.

Second, I can hear the Democratic propaganda already:



In other words, this sounds like exactly the kind of thing a libertarian presidential candidate desperate to attract his usual 0.5% of the popular vote is likely to engage in.

There are far more important and realistic things for 2nd Amendment-supporting Congressmen to vote for. National carry reciprocity easily comes to mind. There may come a time when the nation (though more likely, the courts) is ready to repeal legislation like the GFSZA. This is not the time, and pro-2nd Amendment Congressmen should not waste their political capital on this stunt.



You hit the nail on the head.

This bill is about drama & PR and is a 'puff piece' for the unthinking nonanalytical gun voter. It's likely not a passable entity and there's no room for 2/3 veto override.

There are many other passable, incremental things that can be fixed.
He should get on those where he could help.

bwiese
08-30-2011, 11:22 AM
Why is this bad? Don't you want Congress repealing existing bad laws instead of passing new bad laws?

Sure I do.

(I really love it when people implicity attack me for being anti-gun, instead acknowledging I recognize some things are more politically toxic than others.)

Call me when that happens - on a nuclear-level-toxic soccer-mom- irritating bill. Even generally pro-gun legislators in pro-gun areas don't wanna touch that.

Even if it passed, it would be vetoed.

And if vetoed, there's not enough votes for 2/3 veto override.

This law is much more infuriating to this crowd than ATF recordkeeping-for-dealers reform, carry reciprocity, 922(r) fixups, etc.


Also, Obama does not need to sign the law if a veto-proof majority of Congress votes for it. In an election cycle, many Congress-critters don't want a disarmist vote on his/her record.

You're high on crack if you think a bill with this level of toxicity even gets passed let alone getting 2/3 votes. Yes, a solid 25% of congress may vote for this. This bill is more toxic than opening a machinegun amnesty, for example.


Come on, Bill. It's okay to say something nice about RP once a year. It won't hurt. :)

I'm not gonna support poseur idiocy.

There are plenty of other things he could drive or support that would pass and win.

But he wants the PR from the NAGR nutballs instead.

WeThePeople
08-30-2011, 5:50 PM
You're high on crack if you think a bill with this level of toxicity even gets passed let alone getting 2/3 votes. Yes, a solid 25% of congress may vote for this. This bill is more toxic than opening a machinegun amnesty, for example.

I guess I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack.

voiceofreason
08-30-2011, 7:01 PM
Not to completely derail the thread, but I think his positions on abortion and border security make him more akin to a republican than a true libertarian...

The true libertarian stance on border security would be an Obama-nation.

At least that seems like Mr. Obama's goal. To drag this country down inch by inch.

dunndeal
08-30-2011, 7:04 PM
My congresswoman is Barbara Lee, I won't waste my time calling her.

QQQ
08-31-2011, 9:26 AM
The true libertarian stance on border security would be an Obama-nation.

At least that seems like Mr. Obama's goal. To drag this country down inch by inch.

I have not met a single libertarian (other than myself) who wanted to go softer on border security.

a1c
08-31-2011, 9:33 AM
I know Ron Paul is trying to show what he stands for, but maybe he could dedicate his time to bills that MIGHT actually have a chance to even pass one house?

This is just pandering, and to either anti-gun or on-the-fence public opinion, it makes us look like a bunch of rednecks who don't care about kids and are just encouraging other Colombine shootings.

Yes, the GFSZ law is frustrating, useless and stupid. But this piece of wannabe legislation is dead on arrival.

For someone who likes to ***** about wasting taxpayers' money, I wish Ron Paul would dedicate his time serving the people to more constructive endeavors, rather that this vain demonstration of demagoguery.

AnthonyD1978
08-31-2011, 11:47 AM
As much as I agree with it, this doesn't strike me as the best move for a presidential candidate.

I do agree, but you have to respect a guy that does what he thinks is right based on the constitution and not based on FUD.

AnthonyD1978
08-31-2011, 11:58 AM
Why are people bashing a good bill just because it won't pass? Show some support and people will take notice which will cause discussion and get our views out.

Maybe he should have proposed a bill to change it to a 999' GFSZ instead since it has more of a chance in passing :rolleyes:

6172crew
08-31-2011, 12:16 PM
I guess I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack.
And dont call me Shirley:chris:

bwiese
08-31-2011, 12:21 PM
Why are people bashing a good bill just because it won't pass? Show some support and people will take notice which will cause discussion and get our views out.

If the bill is odious enough to not get political traction in a generally pro-gun Congress, why do we care about that?

This is something you get fixed thru courts as a side issue to somethign else

Let's get RP spend his time on something useful - like carry reciprocity.

stix213
08-31-2011, 1:23 PM
Why are people bashing a good bill just because it won't pass?

A "good bill" that won't pass is a bad bill by definition. It robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses, so it actively harms the movement. When it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing.

I do agree, but you have to respect a guy that does what he thinks is right based on the constitution and not based on FUD.

If doing what he thinks results in wasted effort from the start, wasted effort by more than just himself, he should lose respect instead of receiving it. You get effort points for failing "but at least you tried" in 2nd grade, not Congress.

Jason P
08-31-2011, 1:59 PM
What we need are electrified fences across the border, and 50 shall-issue LTC, open or concealed either way...

SickofSoCal
08-31-2011, 2:08 PM
This thread needs to be locked/deleted per the rules.

bwiese
08-31-2011, 2:49 PM
A "good bill" that won't pass is a bad bill by definition. It robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses, so it actively harms the movement. When it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun morale of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. It's worse than doing nothing.

If doing what he thinks results in wasted effort from the start, wasted effort by more than just himself, he should lose respect instead of receiving it. You get effort points for failing "but at least you tried" in 2nd grade, not Congress.

Nicely put and oh so true...

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 3:21 PM
A "good bill" that won't pass is a bad bill by definition. It robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses, so it actively harms the movement. When it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing.

If doing what he thinks results in wasted effort from the start, wasted effort by more than just himself, he should lose respect instead of receiving it. You get effort points for failing "but at least you tried" in 2nd grade, not Congress.

If this is true, and I think maybe it is, it means that EVERY NRA AND CRPA bill that's run in California are, by definition, "bad bills" that "robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses... actively harms the movement," and "[w]hen it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing."

bwiese
08-31-2011, 3:27 PM
If this is true, and I think maybe it is, it means that EVERY NRA AND CRPA bill that's run in California are, by definition, "bad bills" that "robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses... actively harms the movement," and "[w]hen it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing."


Brandon, he's referring to the Federal context, and not CA. Also, the CA bills are incremental and sometimes achievable.

In CA we have to keep drumming it into their heads against high odds but there's some chance (AB2728, Katrina bill, etc.)

There's a helluva lot difference about a CCW fixup bill or DROS fee in CA than a 'puff piece' by Ron Paul

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 3:32 PM
The context argument goes so far.

The CA bills are incremental, if at all. The reality is that we are, and will remain, on defense. AB2728 was a "must do" for them; Katrina was leveraging national politics stars that had aligned in our favor.

However, we keep hearing that NRA owns Congress, and that they are the "leg" experts. So why are they so unproductive there?

-Brandon

Brandon, he's referring to the Federal context, and not CA. Also, the CA bills are incremental and sometimes achievable.

In CA we have to keep drumming it into their heads against high odds but there's some chance (AB2728, Katrina bill, etc.)

There's a helluva lot difference about a CCW fixup bill or DROS fee in CA than a 'puff piece' by Ron Paul

stix213
08-31-2011, 4:01 PM
If this is true, and I think maybe it is, it means that EVERY NRA AND CRPA bill that's run in California are, by definition, "bad bills" that "robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses... actively harms the movement," and "[w]hen it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing."



If the result is known ahead of time that the effort will certainly fail, and there are no known benefits to the cause by such failure, then it was a "bad bill." If there are secondary effects, even with a loss, then that doesn't qualify. If failure wasn't assured before initial proposal, then that doesn't qualify.

I believe this specific GFSZ bill qualifies though. Not all bills that don't pass qualify. I guess I should have been more specific in my previous post. My opinion

edit: sorry quoted wrong comment

newbee1111
08-31-2011, 4:47 PM
Maybe he should have spent his time on a GFSZ bill that allows fixes the language on out of state carry permits.

GaryV
08-31-2011, 5:32 PM
I mistakenly thought similar, and got slapped down by Bweise. :)

"(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

The gun merely has to have moved in interstate commerce. I guess if you had a firearm made entirely in CA that had never crossed state lines, you might have a defense. Then again, i wouldn't want to be the one on the stand arguing whether or not the accessories count.

Wikipedia actually has a fairly good list of convictions upheld on appeal post-rewrite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Even then you'd be toast, because it says, "or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". Since a gun produced within a state affects sales of guns imported into the state, by way of competing for sales, all guns automatically fit into this second category. Remember that the original case that led to the unconstitutional expansion of government power under the Interstate Commerce clause was against a farmer who was growing grain for his own use. The argument against him was that he would then not be buying grain from someone else.

As far as the proposed law, I think it would have been infinitely smarter to go for national reciprocity, with the inclusion of an exception to the GFSZA for anyone carrying under such reciprocity. It accomplishes even more than Paul's bill, and has a much better chance of passing.

AnthonyD1978
09-01-2011, 9:29 AM
A "good bill" that won't pass is a bad bill by definition. It robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses, so it actively harms the movement. When it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing.



If doing what he thinks results in wasted effort from the start, wasted effort by more than just himself, he should lose respect instead of receiving it. You get effort points for failing "but at least you tried" in 2nd grade, not Congress.

Point taken. Thanks for the response :)

AnthonyD1978
09-01-2011, 9:31 AM
If this is true, and I think maybe it is, it means that EVERY NRA AND CRPA bill that's run in California are, by definition, "bad bills" that "robs pro-gun resources from actual practical uses... actively harms the movement," and "[w]hen it eventually fails to pass, it lowers pro-gun moral of those who thought the political maneuver was actually genuine. Its worse than doing nothing."

Also...point taken :D

JeffC
09-02-2011, 10:56 PM
I don't like a self-important minority that seems incapable of strategic thinking, refuses to recognize political realities, and is so intolerant of those who simply wish to advance liberty at a more realistic pace than they do that they will slander those who should be their allies as traitors to the cause or statist thugs. Anybody familiar with Ron Paul and his band of Paulestinians know what I'm talking about.

In other words you don't like people with principles, and you like ad hominem attacks. Are you sure your name is not Nancy Pelosi?

JeffC
09-02-2011, 11:00 PM
I know Ron Paul is trying to show what he stands for, but maybe he could dedicate his time to bills that MIGHT actually have a chance to even pass one house?

This is just pandering, and to either anti-gun or on-the-fence public opinion, it makes us look like a bunch of rednecks who don't care about kids and are just encouraging other Colombine shootings.

Yes, the GFSZ law is frustrating, useless and stupid. But this piece of wannabe legislation is dead on arrival.

For someone who likes to ***** about wasting taxpayers' money, I wish Ron Paul would dedicate his time serving the people to more constructive endeavors, rather that this vain demonstration of demagoguery.

It is not pandering it is purposeful. The whole country including gun owners moan and groan for a principled politician, not only in rhetoric but in action. Ron Paul is the embodiment of principled and what do you get? You get a bunch of Obama-Lites saying Ron is not strategic enough...

sfbadger
09-02-2011, 11:19 PM
Well, I'll give Feinstein and Boxer another call but since I had bad break-ups with both of them, I'm not expecting my calls returned!