PDA

View Full Version : Oh, look. GOA and JPFO are attacking NRA again (yawn).


mikehaas
04-26-2007, 8:25 AM
Once again, as NRA deals with the serious business of gun control on the national level, the financial opportunists - GOA and JPFO - come out of the woodwork to nip at its heels and try to squeeze every dollar out of the well-intentioned but frustrated gun-owner. Truly dispicable.

As a focused association of 4 million members, NRA is the standard target for these tiny "send us your money instead" groups. But "attacking NRA" is an industry with these mouths - spin and inflate NRA's position (regardless of what that position is) to something truly twisted - to try to enrage enough gun-owners that they become convinced NRA is evil (pronounced ee-vil, of course). When you are as small as GOA and JPFO, it doesn't take many - 01% of NRA members is a BOON to their pocketbooks - to get yourselves some fast loot.

Their latest betrayal of the Second Amendment is to oppose NRA on opening the mental health records of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the wake of the VT shooting. This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. (Again, due to the fine work of NRA over the last decade. More on that later.) Of course, these inflammatory "hate NRA, pay for our mortgages" groups are quick on the scare tactic trigger, calling the idea "more gun control", inferring that even the average mental health patient will be in danger of never owning guns again.

Of course, they won't educate anyone that NRA's position is both specific and unchanged. A person MUST be adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, not simply under care of a doctor or even exhibiting eccentric "Brittney Spears"-type behavior in public. This has always been NRA's position, only now, it is worth money for GOA and JPFO to publicly attack it. Despite the fact that Congress is NOT attacking gun-owners and IS moving toward NRA's position, these "sky is falling" groups will serve the Second Amendment badly and oppose real progress.

This should surprise no one. It was the same story years ago, when GOA opposed NRA's relaxed CCW policies in states like Michigan and Texas. (Now over 40 states enjoy relaxed CCW policies!) Or when GOA supported the father of gun confiscation when they vigorously endorsed Republican Dan Lungren in his 1998 bid for California governor just months after he banned SKS Sporters and ORDERED THEIR CONFISCATION. JPFO has drifted far from it's roots of educating the public about the horrors gun control has perpetrated on the Jewish community to simply become another "barking dog" whenever something important happens and NRA takes a stand.

And of course, the liberal media is eager to take advantage of GOA's and JPFO's rants to confuse the issue, presenting the idiotic views of these RKBA goons as that of the "gun lobby" in an attempt to side-step NRA's point-of-view and misrepresent gun-owners as non-thinking, uncaring neandrethals. They make America's gun-owners appear unwilling and unable to co-exist in modern-day America.

And speaking of media, the differing responses of GOA and NRA following the tragedy are worth noting. Anti-gunners were in front of microphones within an hour to try to spin the event into a call for more gun control. Their eagerness to gain politically from such a tragedy was discussed with disgust by several shocked commentators, personally overheard by yours truly. But was the "gun lobby" any more respectful? Not if you based your view on GOA! Getting between these charlatans and a microphone at such a time is a dangerous place to be - GOA was eager to put their mugs on TV and jump right in! (And some of those interviews are truly regrettable from ANY perspective.)

In contrast, NRA issued this brief statement:
-----
Monday, April 16, 2007

The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.

We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.
-----

Yes, NRA exhibited true class, but you guessed it - it was too late. The liberal media quickly noted how "both sides" were quick to try to gain politically from this tragic event. In reality, it wasn't NRA, or Smith & Wesson or Remington - it was GOA that brought that shame to "the gun lobby". After all, they have car payments to make! (And they need some of you out there to make them.)

We can thank NRA that anti-gunners have been unable to gain traction within the Democrat Party in recent times. The losses of Gore and Kerry combined with countless other federal and state seats have made a strong impression on Democrat leaders and consultants, who, after 2006, have been reminded how nice "winning" can be. Thankfully, there is no doubt about the initials of the group that delivered those defeats - NRA.

While NRA conducts the serious business of protecting gun-rights, GOA and JPFO have donned their standard mode of operation - that of the disloyal opposition in search of "bucks". We can be thankful that government officials pay them no mind, aware of the foolishness of their "automatically-anti-NRA" press releases and statements. Now it is up to the unsuspecting gun-owner, who may have sent money to these tiny groups, to realize how their valuable RKBA dollar is being abused.

Mike Haas

Can'thavenuthingood
04-26-2007, 10:46 AM
At times I've been tempted to wash my hands of the whole shebang and go tend to my garden. Let the world and all its yahoos fight it out, just leave me alone.

There ought to be a state org that oversees and watches the politicians and the bureaucracy at the state level. One with a decent set of folks running it with altrustic motive. Instead it seems we have a small business operation for profit IRT CRPA.

The Appropriations hearing on AB 821 Lead Ban was a poor display of CRPA's lobbying effort. The guy presented the reloaders arguement against in financial terms but was ill prepared to defend what he brought to the parapet. Said he's not a reloader and allowed the supporter of the lead ban to present associated costs pretty much unchallenged.

Somebody else must have heard this?
Am I incorrect in my interpretation of what happened?

There was no doubt this was going to pass and now they are on a money hunt?
We'd be far better off to solicit and pay expenses to a Calgunner to present the arguements.

Vick

Moby
04-26-2007, 1:30 PM
Their latest betrayal of the Second Amendment is to oppose NRA on opening the mental health records of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the wake of the VT shooting. This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. Mike Haas

Common sense approach, huh? That's exactly the line that the Bradys use in every press release. Tell me just how this leglation would've/could've stopped Cho? Anyone?

When HR-1022 makes it way to the floor, the NRA will propose an amendment to make it closer to the original '94 AWB. You'll cheer the NRA for stopping an outright ban.

Remember:

N egotiate
R ights
A way

Mark Harper
GOA Life Member

PS: All insults were intentionally ignored.
PPS: How many times a week does the NRA call you asking for money?

Satex
04-26-2007, 1:55 PM
Mike,
I do not expect someone of your stature to make such a post. JPFO is holding a line that the NRA wishes it could have. NRA has become a large self sustaining political organization. The fact that it has learned to play the political game means that it has somewhat compromised its principles. While the NRA does a good job, the JPFO is correct at attacking the NRA. Consider them to be the NRA's buried conscience.
And when if want to talk dollars, let me remind you about the weekly letters and email I receive from the NRA asking me to pitch in a few more dollars. So don't be blaming the JPFO of being financially motivated.

bwiese
04-26-2007, 2:02 PM
Mike,
I do not expect someone of your stature to make such a post. JPFO is holding a line that the NRA wishes it could have.

JPFO is a one-room organization with 2 or 3 guys at best. It can talk big bully talk because it never has, and never will, get anything done (like GOA).

The other gun orgs are big talk folks who just keep hammering their heads against the wall. They carry little, if any, political weight.

No politician *ever* worries about what GOA or JPFO says.

MrTuffPaws
04-26-2007, 2:09 PM
Wow. Who would have ever thought that the NRA was going to play the victim.

Those mean GOA, JPFO, and there likes. Stop being meanies and leave the NRA alone. Who cares of your criticism of the NRA is valid? You're just mean.

MrTuffPaws
04-26-2007, 2:13 PM
Remember:

N egotiate
R ights
A way


BAHAWAHAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. Thanks.

SemiAutoSam
04-26-2007, 2:34 PM
IMHO NRA did majorly drop the ball on AB2521 No matter what anyone says about it Its another infringement on our rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this Mike but NRA didn't say jack about this one now did they.

Negotiate RightsAway Is correct IMO.

I would love to here an explanation from NRA on this issue and Until I receive it I will have nothing good to say about them nor anything to do with them or their causes.

EOS




http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52155

Common sense approach, huh? That's exactly the line that the Bradys use in every press release. Tell me just how this legislation would've/could've stopped Cho? Anyone?

When HR-1022 makes it way to the floor, the NRA will propose an amendment to make it closer to the original '94 AWB. You'll cheer the NRA for stopping an outright ban.

Remember:

N egotiate
R ights
A way

Mark Harper
GOA Life Member

PS: All insults were intentionally ignored.
PPS: How many times a week does the NRA call you asking for money?

dfletcher
04-26-2007, 2:35 PM
Every Ike has its Dick Nixon.

bwiese
04-26-2007, 2:37 PM
Wow. Who would have ever thought that the NRA was going to play the victim.

When you have 3rd-tier organizations starting lawsuits that they can't support and the NRA has to come in and bail things out one their members' dollars, yeah.

Anthonysmanifesto
04-26-2007, 3:05 PM
on HR 297, I just skimmed it, but the most important part to me is what is the definition of mentally incompetent and committed mean? well they arent spelled out, but referred to in regs.

artherd
04-27-2007, 2:53 AM
JPFO and others talk a pretty sweet game, but achieve little.

NRA achives a whole hell of a lot, much of it behind closed doors, and in confidence. They are the big dog and as such, take all of the flak. They are not perfect, but they are the best (nay, ONLY) option we've got. You owe them nothing less than the lack of total firearm prohibition.

Moby
04-27-2007, 8:49 AM
Who is at the negotiating table? whos negotiating with press releases? who does congress turn to for expertise?


There's that word again. N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-E. When you negotiate with something you already have, you lose.

Congress does not turn to the NRA for expertise. Congress turns to the NRA for campaign contributions.

Anthonysmanifesto
04-27-2007, 9:38 AM
There's that word again. N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-E. When you negotiate with something you already have, you lose.

Congress does not turn to the NRA for expertise. Congress turns to the NRA for campaign contributions.

I guess NRA would be more effective if they didn't go into the capitol and just sent out press releases attacking other groups?

Dont Tread on Me
04-27-2007, 10:03 AM
I was anti NRA about a year and a half ago as I felt they had given up on California. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a class organization playing on a very difficult playing field. The sad thing to me is that we has only 4 million NRA members holding up the gun rights for 90 million gun owners. If you've not joined please do.

To motivate myself, I've signed up for Brady Campaign e-mails. Every day I get reminded that there is a strong organized effort to ban all guns.

xenophobe
04-27-2007, 11:01 AM
Look, the NRA is attacking the JPFO and GOA again. :rolleyes:

While I don't particularly care for all this political infighting, JPFO has a completely different mindset than the NRA and to bash them is a bit underhanded, especially since you don't provide any concrete proof of it.

JPFO is against creating new legislation, NRA loves to create new legislation
JPFO is against gun control, NRA is for common sense gun control
JPFO is against the BATFE. NRA is not.

Perhaps NRA should take sides with JPFO more often.

As for your points against GOA, I cannot argue them. But to see you do exactly what you say the others are doing is freaking hypocritical beyond all reasonable explanation...

And no, I'm not anti-NRA, I'm a member. I'm starting to become ANTI-Mike Haas though.

mikehaas
04-27-2007, 11:14 AM
There's that word again. N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-E. When you negotiate with something you already have, you lose.

Congress does not turn to the NRA for expertise. Congress turns to the NRA for campaign contributions.
I disagree. Congress comes to NRA for votes. Or, since 2000 and 2004, they stay away from NRA (and gun issues) to preserve votes. I believe the Democrat Party has decided that winning feels pretty good. Bad for Sarah, though.

And BTW, this is not a change in NRA's position. I'm pretty sure that NRA has always believed, as is federal law, that the mentally ill should not be able to possess firearms. Opening mental health records to NICs is consistent with NRA's positions.

The Democratically-controlled Congress, however, in not attacking gun-rights and getting behind this legislation, is moving toward NRA. NRA hasn't moved an inch.

Mike

bwiese
04-27-2007, 11:18 AM
JPFO is against creating new legislation, NRA loves to create new legislation


JPFO is three guys in a living room: whatever JPFO or GOA thinks is almost immaterial.

Not one single outcome has been changed, not one vote has been changed, due to their existence. No politician worries about their stance.

And I know GOA has screwed things up in DC several times with some pretty outlandish tactics - kinda like when the Bradyites went to Sacramento and got kicked out of legislators offices.

Sheet, Calguns has had more effect on gun laws (admittedly, at a state level) than JPFO.

mikehaas
04-27-2007, 11:19 AM
I guess NRA would be more effective if they didnt go into the capitol and just sent out press releases attacking other groups.
NRA hasn't done any such thing. I mean, NRA is at the capitol of course, but I'm sure they aren't berating anyone or anything except the claims of the antigunners.

This thread was my personal opinion. Volunteer here, remember? Don't make a penny from any involvement with NRA and these are my opinions. I'm sick and tired of seeing these groups pull this garbage. And they only do it for monetary gain, the Second Amendment can go fly a kite. And y'know, I think I have some pretty good company on this issue.

In his first year as NRA-ILA director (1978) the late Neal Knox put an article in the American Rifleman that laid it on the line. He described how these small groups misrepresent facts and make themselves seem more important than they are. This is an excerpt from the SECOND PARAGRAPH (American Rifleman, Nov. 1978, Page 80):

"...(O)ther organizations - for reasons of their own - have continued to attempt to build themselves up by tearing down NRA. These efforts have gone beyond mere bickering, and have become unjustified, unsubstantiated and untrue attacks. They have damaged the NRA and the defense of gun ownership in ways that the vowed enemies of gun ownership could not, to the delight of our foes..."

In the rest of the article, Neal names names and groups and gives specifics about the same kinds of attacks you are seeing today. Friends, there is nothing new under the sun.

Mike

MIKEUSMC2005
04-27-2007, 11:40 AM
My opinion only:

For me, I don't care who is collecting funds for their organization.

The main issue at stake here is the protection of firearms in the hands of ordinary, law biding citizens. Most importantly is the preservation of the Second Amendment-which all these pro gun organizations seem to be doing.

Like I said, my opinion only.

Mike

USMC/RET.

mikehaas
04-27-2007, 12:24 PM
Look, the NRA is attacking the JPFO and GOA again. :rolleyes:
I see, X. You too want to paint NRA with my personal opinion, that of a volunteer. Fine. So where do yours come from then?

While I don't particularly care for all this political infighting, JPFO has a completely different mindset than the NRA and to bash them is a bit underhanded, especially since you don't provide any concrete proof of it.
No, I'm not going to further distribute their anti-NRA fundraising literature. Suffice to say the first 3 words of the title I saw were "NRA WRONG ABOUT..."

JPFO is against creating new legislation, NRA loves to create new legislation
JPFO is against gun control, NRA is for common sense gun control
JPFO is against the BATFE. NRA is not.
I'm impressed - you packed so much incorrect information in so few words. Fascinating perceptions. Unfortunately, X, you have an incredible lack of understanding of "how it works". Fortunately, you have me.

JPFO adopts anti-NRA positions because they live off the hardcore. Accordingly, it doesn't matter what position they adopt - it can be as unflinching, reactionary, uncompromising, hardheaded as they want. Serious law and policy makers aren't going to care what they say anyway - they have the luxury of being irrelevant. They will only support the most hardcore legislation - that which has zero chance of passing - because, when it fails, they can blame NRA. When you've placed yourself so far out of the working mainstream (intentionally), you create this angry minority who you've convinced you are their savior. Same for GOA, etc. They feed off the audience they cater to - frustrated gun-owners - and are careful never to actually solve a problem.

Perhaps NRA should take sides with JPFO more often.
I hope you now see how that can never happen. JPFO cannot let that happen. Their hardcore contributions would dry up and, well, it's harder to make money (takes real work) when you are agreeing with the big dog. it's easier to put on the show - bare your teeth and growl. The hardcore LOVE that.

Now, there ARE very good groups around. For example, the Fifty Caliber Institute and Fifty calibers' Shooters' A-s-s'n (although the latter is more a "shooting" group than legislative.) They don't play this "oppose everything NRA does" game. In fact, they work well with NRA, taking the point on their issue. If only every "pro-gun" group were so dedicated to real progress. No, there have to be some fakers. Just common sense tells you that a reputable group just isn't going to disagree with NRA that often and when they do, they don't make a big deal about it. Not if they plan to work together in the future, which clearly, neither JPFO nor GOA expects.

As for your points against GOA, I cannot argue them. But to see you do exactly what you say the others are doing is freaking hypocritical beyond all reasonable explanation...

I am an INDIVIDUAL gun-owner, X. I don't take money from gun-owners, promising to protect their rights and then not follow through. Everything I do for NRA is on a volunteer basis. I am not speaking for NRA and have as much right to an opinion as anyone.

And, my personal opinion is, I see no distinction between GOA and JPFO. JPFO may be a bit later coming to the game, that's all.

And no, I'm not anti-NRA, I'm a member. I'm starting to become ANTI-Mike Haas though.
Well, I can't let THAT happen, right? Tell you what - how about you just read the 'mikehaas' posts that start with logos? I'd rather you didn't read my personal opinions if you can't handle them emotionally.

But for me, these are organizations that take RKBA dollars out of the fight and should have SOME measure of performance placed on them. You can't vote for their leadership, they have no "board" to contact, they are self-appointed NRA haters. GOA and JPFO have no problem using their members' RKBA dollars to impugn NRA, but they shouldn't expect critisism from NRA members? How is that supposed to work, exactly?

Voicing one's opinion is part of what makes America great, X, or hadn't you noticed?

Mike

xenophobe
04-27-2007, 12:59 PM
I see, X. You too want to paint NRA with my personal opinion, that of a volunteer. Fine. So where do yours come from then?

This is your opinion? On Calguns, what do you do? You only post NRA materials. I have yet to see you post on anything non-NRA. Your word is taken by everyone who comes here as NRA representation. So as much as you would like to say "this is personal opinion" the fact is that whatever you say here, especially regarding any position for or against, is a view of the NRA.

You live and breathe the NRA. That's fine. I have absolutely no beef with that. You host the California NRA Member's Council website. You also host FCI and the CAFR website. You also host them not under any corporate name and it's obvious you make damned sure that they link directly to your name.

Hence your opinion=that of the people you associate with.


JPFO adopts anti-NRA positions because they live off the hardcore. Accordingly, it doesn't matter what position they adopt - it can be as unflinching, reactionary, uncompromising, hardheaded as they want. Serious law and policy makers aren't going to care what they say anyway - they have the luxury of being irrelevant. They will only support the most hardcore legislation - that which has zero chance of passing - because, when it fails, they can blame NRA. When you've placed yourself so far out of the working mainstream (intentionally), you create this angry minority who you've convinced you are their savior. Same for GOA, etc. They feed off the audience they cater to - frustrated gun-owners - and are careful never to actually solve a problem.

And I don't dispute this or your positions about the other groups.

Now, there ARE very good groups around. For example, the Fifty Caliber Institute and Fifty calibers' Shooters' A-s-s'n (although the latter is more a "shooting" group than legislative.) They don't play this "oppose everything NRA does" game. In fact, they work well with NRA, taking the point on their issue. If only every "pro-gun" group were so dedicated to real progress. No, there have to be some fakers. Just common sense tells you that a reputable group just isn't going to disagree with NRA that often and when they do, they don't make a big deal about it. Not if they plan to work together in the future, which clearly, neither JPFO nor GOA expects.

I understand this.


I am an INDIVIDUAL gun-owner, X. I don't take money from gun-owners, promising to protect their rights and then not follow through. Everything I do for NRA is on a volunteer basis. I am not speaking for NRA and have as much right to an opinion as anyone.

So you host the NRA Member's Council website, FCI, and CAFR for free?



Voicing one's opinion is part of what makes America great, X, or hadn't you noticed?

Yes, it is. However in your posts, regardless of a silly logo or not, you are regarded as the voice of the NRA here and I don't see any disclaimer in your post stating this isn't official NRA policy, and using the same account to post your NRA notices and then voice undisclaimed personal opinion doesn't distance your opinion from that of your representation. It equates it.

The anti-gunners don't need to use the tactic of 'divide and conquer'... it is completely alive within the gun-rights advocates who are all bent on being better than the other instead of getting along, even if it is only a public facade.

xenophobe
04-27-2007, 4:23 PM
Yeah, that's nice. NRA is good, GOA is bad, JPFO is bad. Who cares about those liberals.... at least you can work with them to write laws. *shrug*

FreedomIsNotFree
04-27-2007, 5:06 PM
I'm skeptical of anyone that claims to have all the answers. I'm also equally skeptical of organizations that claim ownership of any particular issue.

As a member of the NRA for over 20 years, I wish that the NRA and its employees would stick to highlighting what they are doing right, rather than poking fingers at the next group claiming they have no credibility.

hoffmang
04-27-2007, 9:08 PM
So who here think 5150 is a HORRIBLE ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOMS AND SHOULD BE STOPPED?

Anyone?

There is an argument that there is a due process piece missing from 5150 as I've heard of stories of political retribution based on 5150. That can be fixed.

5150 would have stopped Cho from buying from a legit dealer in California were he a student at UCLA.

Doing something at the Federal level to help NICs keep Cho from buying through a legal source is hard to defend on the other side.

I challenge someone here to defend that someone adjudicated a danger to self or others should not have his second amendment rights disable at least for a short period.

GAO, and JPFO are in fact making the argument that we should let people adjudicated a danger to self and/or others buy firearms unfettered. At least they are honest loons on this position.

-Gene

Charliegone
04-27-2007, 9:53 PM
So who here think 5150 is a HORRIBLE ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOMS AND SHOULD BE STOPPED?

Anyone?

There is an argument that there is a due process piece missing from 5150 as I've heard of stories of political retribution based on 5150. That can be fixed.

5150 would have stopped Cho from buying from a legit dealer in California were he a student at UCLA.

Doing something at the Federal level to help NICs keep Cho from buying through a legal source is hard to defend on the other side.

I challenge someone here to defend that someone adjudicated a danger to self or others should not have his second amendment rights disable at least for a short period.

GAO, and JPFO are in fact making the argument that we should let people adjudicated a danger to self and/or others buy firearms unfettered. At least they are honest loons on this position.

-Gene

I'm actually for keeping firearms away from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves and others. My beef is, what guarantee do we have the government won't abuse this system? I think there should be several "checks" that need to be put in place to determine who can and can't (in this case the mentally ill). Bill made a good point, as well Gene..just ask yourself..

Who has the power to challenge court decisions with good lawyers?
Who has the ability to reach out to ALL gun owners?
Who has the money to pass pro-gun laws, get elected officials on our side, etc?

LAK Supply
04-27-2007, 10:19 PM
As others here have voiced, my concern is that ANY regulation of firearms by the government leads over time to more and more restriction. There is absolutely no evidence that any "common-sense" gun regulation has been good for 2A rights.

In fact, I think it says "shall not be infringed" in the 2A.... where does this leave room for regulation on any level?

An insane piece of **** like choad or choo or whatever his name is will ABSOLUTELY find a way to get a weapon and kill people it that's what he wants to do. The guy could have made a bomb that would have killed many more people with some very simple household/farm chemicals. The only thing that "mental health" restrictions will do is open up more fronts for restriction, kind of like the "domestic violence" restriction.

On the flip side, if the rights of the students and faculty on the VT campus were not "infringed" that POS wouldn't have made it past the first few people without getting shot down by another armed citizen. A few people probably would have died no matter what happened; as unfortunate as that is it will continue to be a reality in any society where humans interact. The ONLY thing that ANY regulation does is handicap the innocents.

The mentally-deranged and criminal element need only fish around in their locale to find a gun that is not on anybody's registration list and does not require anything of them other than a Benjamin.

My beef with the NRA is that they DO support some types of regulation. Athough this is the case, they have made some positive headway with some things. However, if more organizations that were financially-capable (such as the NRA) held the beliefs of the JPFO we may not be in a position where the government is arresting people for guns that look evil.

The 2A is there to ensure our protection from our government. Where in this philosophy does it make sense to let the fox guard the henhouse? If the NRA supports ANY regulation they are in the wrong, no matter what else they are doing that is positive.

hoffmang
04-27-2007, 10:28 PM
The perfect continues to be the death of the good.

Charlie - if you're worried the system will be abused, ask for standing to sue under the statute in the law - don't oppose the whole law.

LAK - You are making the pro-choice "no compromise" argument. I'm sympathetic that we should take no compromises, but even the pro-choice support child porn laws.

Opposing steps to make it easier and more accurate for states to report folks to NICs that have been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others - like Cho - seems like common sense as especially compared to a large-capacity magazine ban.

As for me, in the realm of understanding how government actually works - I am astonishingly happy that the legislative response to this incident WOULD ACTUALLY make a recurrence more difficult for the actual perpetrator.

Compare that to Homeland Security and 9/11/01.

-Gene

xenophobe
04-27-2007, 10:35 PM
So who here think 5150 is a HORRIBLE ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOMS AND SHOULD BE STOPPED?

I agree it is a horrible attack on our freedoms, but the current atmosphere lends to going a bit past any point of necessity....


I challenge someone here to defend that someone adjudicated a danger to self or others should not have his second amendment rights disable at least for a short period.

And sadly, I agree with this. The time has come to where mental instability is a big enough issue to have to deal with on a federal level.

hoffmang
04-27-2007, 10:43 PM
I was being a bit facetious. I don't think 5150 has to be an attack on our freedoms. I do think that 5150 very specifically has a flaw in CA in that accusation is not easily rebuttable.

There are people that should not have firearms for their and everyone else's safety. Until you've experienced what a mentally ill person is like it is almost impossible to describe. I have far more personal experience than I would like and I can share with you that the folks I'm referring too should not have firearms.

The person in question was denied arms by myself and my father. This person then took a car and hit and run 14 other cars trying to commit suicide. Luckily no one was killed.

My shotgun would have changed things for that mentally ill person.

Let's watch this law and subject to it being fair and limited - support the core goal of keeping arms from the mentally ill at least for a short time.

-Gene

xenophobe
04-27-2007, 11:14 PM
Yeah, I saw your sarcastic humor... I've had my experiences with truly unstable people... Not to the extent which you have which I just read, I'm sorry to hear, but which is why I agree that any such pre-adjudication determination of mental illness should be a basis for temporary denial, and I addressed these issues in an earlier post:

-----
And if they have a patient that is obviously a danger to themselves or others due to some kind of mental imbalance; admitted schizophrenia, major or psychotic depression, etc... Then they should notify the federal government, as long as there is documented proof of violent and erratic behavior, and there is some kind of qualified medical review process to appeal to... and the bar should be relatively high and status should only be temporary until adjudicated by a court as mentally defective.

hoffmang
04-27-2007, 11:19 PM
Xeno,

I completely concur with your procedural protections. Coming back OT, I just wish that that was what JFPO or GOA were saying.

However, it is not.

-Gene

Charliegone
04-27-2007, 11:44 PM
The perfect continues to be the death of the good.

Charlie - if you're worried the system will be abused, ask for standing to sue under the statute in the law - don't oppose the whole law.

LAK - You are making the pro-choice "no compromise" argument. I'm sympathetic that we should take no compromises, but even the pro-choice support child porn laws.

Opposing steps to make it easier and more accurate for states to report folks to NICs that have been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others - like Cho - seems like common sense as especially compared to a large-capacity magazine ban.

As for me, in the realm of understanding how government actually works - I am astonishingly happy that the legislative response to this incident WOULD ACTUALLY make a recurrence more difficult for the actual perpetrator.

Compare that to Homeland Security and 9/11/01.

-Gene

Sounds good to me.:D

LAK Supply
04-27-2007, 11:47 PM
Gene,

I do take a hard-line approach to the 2A. I think the Founders knew that the government would do it's best to take the ultimate tools of defense away from the people. Knowing that the "government" is comprised only of people that have a certain amount of power (or at least that potential) over the rest of the people, I also think that they were correct in stating that RKBA shall not be infringed.

To me, letting the government create any firearms regulation is very much like a bank teller asking the bank robber if he may be armed while getting robbed. The robber would have to be insane to grant that request, and for obvious reasons. If there were some kind of complication (like that pesky BOR) that prevented the robber from keeping the teller completely unarmed it is definitely a reasonable goal that the teller does not possess a weapon with the same capability of the weapon possessed by the robber himself.

In my view, the government is that robber. Over time they (the power-hungry, crooked people that the government is comprised of) have figured out many thousands of ways to rob the commoners (formerly known as citizens). The have continually sought to take things from us, and the one constant goal of statist politicians over the years has been the incremental disarmament of the people. The people are no longer on the same playing field as the government, and I include everything from police departments to full-fledged military in this statement.

I feel that government regulation, not the lack thereof, killed over 30 people in Virginia a couple of weeks ago.

I do not think that the government can prevent ANYONE from getting their hands on a firearm. They can't even keep drugs and guns out of prison facilities; what could possibly lead me to believe that a law would prevent someone from getting nearly anything they want?

I also do not liken this to a pro-choice type of scenario. . . . . I see nothing in the BOR that states the right of the people to create/view child pornography shall not be infringed. I think the Founders would have been adamantly opposed to this type of behavior, while they found the RKBA important enough to declare it as a sovereign right that shall not be infringed.

I understand your thoughts and I can respect them, I just happen to disagree with any organized gang of thugs/robbers regulating my right to defense against them. This would have to include them getting their fingers into anything in that area. IMO the best way to stop a psychopath is not to create more laws that can and usually are used against the people; it is to ensure that the people are armed, vigilant, and take responsibility for their personal security. A bullet from a well-armed citizen can stop a killer when all laws have failed to do so.

hoffmang
04-28-2007, 12:10 AM
LAK,

The historical literature makes it pretty clear that the founders thought that the mentally ill, the drunk, and those who had violence or crimes of moral terpitude in their past could have their right to arms removed.

You are arguing for a right whose nature doesn't appear to me to be what the founders believed that society and government should allow based on the contemporary sources.

And, my point about at least your political expediency and the pro-choice movement may hit a bit closer to your preference on how to play the politics than you'd like to admit to.

Finally, you are abjectly arguing against implementing a measure to stop the mentally unfit from purchasing arms. You should count yourself among the lucky who have not had first hand experience with what the term unhinged actually means. You're assuming sense. If a schizophrenic walks into a gun store and the NICs come's back bad, the little voice in his head may just tell him that "see, you really are unfit - maybe you should just drive into a tree."

Not a pleasant outcome, but better than 32 dead.

-Gene

LAK Supply
04-28-2007, 12:32 AM
Gene,

You are correct about the Founders' view on morals character and related; however, I think they were more afraid of tyranny than of the mentally ill.

I DO NOT think that mental cases should be armed. In fact, there are a lot of people that I think should not be armed. However, I most definitley think that government regulation of the 2A (and most other things) leads directly to an abuse of power. I also believe that this abuse of power will continue until the means to effectively counter it are sufficiently diminished or removed.

While I don't think 5150 patients should be armed, I also do not think that the government should regulate any firearms. I am more concerned about freedom that any false sense of safety that would result from regulation that would do nothing to stop anyone that is determined to arm themselves.

I would rather take the chance that I may need to defend myself than to take the chance that someday, somewhere down the slippery slope I will not have the means to.

hoffmang
04-28-2007, 12:55 AM
LAK,

Slippery slope arguments are themselves slippery. I don't see how adjudicated mentally unfit can have a material slippery slope in the way that most gun control measures do.

Parker is likely to decrease the scope of the potential end of the slipper slope. I think it important that folks start to realize that we are actually winning in the minds of the voters, in the legislatures, and in the judiciary - even if we aren't here in CA. That means we will all have to modify our approach to many of these issues over time.

-Gene

LAK Supply
04-28-2007, 10:08 AM
Gene,

I beleive there are some slippery slopes that truly are slippery slopes. I think you could agree that once the government gets its hands on something, their involvement rarely diminishes or goes away; one look at taxes, social programs, environmental regs, etc. should prove that.

Once again, I don't want 5150 cases to be armed, I just happen to think that the only way to truly protect the 2A from the government is a total hands-off policy.

I agree that Parker could be a very good thing for existing gun laws; we definitely need a High Court decision to back the 2A. The lefties have been using the "collective" argument for way too long. I think that even your Ginsburg types may clarify the 2A as individual........ It's that clear to anyone who can read.

Although most of the time I agree with you I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one Gene. I just don't see any government intervention as being a good thing. Maybe something only on the local level........ not a big fan of that either but at least it's not a centralized government.

To keep that from getting touched by the feds though, the tax structure between the states and feds would have to be re-vamped. A lot of state/local things don't stay there when the feds are holding the tax revenue disbursement carrot........ I think that's another conversation though. :)

Lance



LAK,

Slippery slope arguments are themselves slippery. I don't see how adjudicated mentally unfit can have a material slippery slope in the way that most gun control measures do.

Parker is likely to decrease the scope of the potential end of the slipper slope. I think it important that folks start to realize that we are actually winning in the minds of the voters, in the legislatures, and in the judiciary - even if we aren't here in CA. That means we will all have to modify our approach to many of these issues over time.

-Gene

hoffmang
04-28-2007, 11:00 AM
Gene,
Once again, I don't want 5150 cases to be armed, I just happen to think that the only way to truly protect the 2A from the government is a total hands-off policy.


You are contradicting yourself here. How do you stop 5150's from buying arms easily and not have the government involved?

The problem with the basis of your argument is that it would apply to murder too. The government can use murder charges to infringe your right to self defense, so we shouldn't have murder laws.

-Gene

xenophobe
04-28-2007, 11:05 AM
LAK, there is quite a larger percentage of the population suffering from mental disorders now too... also, 200 years ago, they were locked away until they died. Now medications, modern society and other situations make people who wouldn't last long then have protections today.. and people are just mentally weaker than they used to be, leading to more cases of people who just can't cope.

Something needs to be done, but not regarding restricting firearms.... restricting mentally deficient people from obtaining them is the key.

LAK Supply
04-28-2007, 11:50 AM
Gene,

I don't think I am contradicting myself here..... I'm not sure how this should be handled to be quite honest. The one thing that I know for sure is that government (the feds in particular) have a very bad habit of beginning the regulation of something and continually adding new regulation whenever possible. I'm not sure how many gun laws exist in the US, but I would guess there are several thousand when you factor in the states and the feds. All of this came from little or no regulation 100 years ago.

Maybe a private entity is the answer? I'm not sure......


You are contradicting yourself here. How do you stop 5150's from buying arms easily and not have the government involved?

The problem with the basis of your argument is that it would apply to murder too. The government can use murder charges to infringe your right to self defense, so we shouldn't have murder laws.

-Gene

bwiese
04-28-2007, 11:52 AM
I am sympathetic to the keep-outta-deranged hands too.

My dad was, to my knowledge, was the only nonmilitary pilot doing nonmilitary things inside USA to be shot down in peacetime - 1967, Oklahoma.

He made it thru WWII in B17s ("shot at and missed, sh*t at and hit") by skin of his teeth, but a couple of retards released from an Okla mental institution shot him down from an adjoining farm while pops was cropdusting for boll weevils in cotton fields. I believe shotguns w/slugs were used. The plane ahead of him nosed in and the pilot ("Preacher", part-time minister) was killed. My dad just had a very very very hard landing: he was extremely fortunate the chemical hopper didn't burst open as it has methyl parathion, and a tablespoonful of this neurotoxin on your skin kills you.

Okla civil committment proceeedings were either rapid or nonexistent, and I think they just threw the dudes back in the tank without much overhead or paperwork.

Anyway, didn't scare him away from guns - about 9 mos later he bought a Browning Auto-5 which I am now kicking myself for letting him sell.

I bring this up because it is rational that folks like these and convicted violent felons should not be armed. These guys had been let out of the funny farm (a separate decision whose wisdom is certainly challengeable on its own merit).

It would simply be an indefensible, inarguable position politically to say otherwise, and this is why the non-NRA gun groups have zero traction and zero effects on politicians and why money given to these groups is wasted (if they have zero effect, what good is giving them money?) A retail sale at a shop with instant check is a limited-overhead thing that does not add any true burden.

You all should also realize HR1022 AW stuff is coming up. By giving NRA- or gun-friendly legislators a way to vote on an issue like this, they have a bit of political cover later when 1022 rolls around for a vote (or to get out of commitee) as they have made their "vote to keep guns out of hands of criminally insane".

Frankly, there are other issues with these proposed laws from the mental-health/HIPPA protections side that may not make it see the light of day; the NRA knows this and can take a nice public position and get brownie points without anything changing.

LAK Supply
04-28-2007, 11:57 AM
I don't disagree with your assessment Xeno..... as I stated in the last post I'm not sure what the correct action should be. My main concern with government intervention in this area is that the focus will turn from eliminating guns that can be purchased to who can purchase them. If they can't win with the overall gun control issue (Parker may seal this if all goes well) the focus could very well turn to the people issue. Just the opinion of someone who doesn't trust the government on any level...... I think they will abuse any regulation that is implemented.

As I mentioned in the last post, maybe a private entity (possibly involving manufacturers, dealers, and citizens) could help with this? I really don't know what the answer is.




LAK, there is quite a larger percentage of the population suffering from mental disorders now too... also, 200 years ago, they were locked away until they died. Now medications, modern society and other situations make people who wouldn't last long then have protections today.. and people are just mentally weaker than they used to be, leading to more cases of people who just can't cope.

Something needs to be done, but not regarding restricting firearms.... restricting mentally deficient people from obtaining them is the key.