Jump to content


Photo

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Pushes HR-45


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
5 replies to this topic

#1 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:53 PM

Monday, October 19, 2009

Meet the Boogeyman

Recently, I got hold of a fundraising letter that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) sent out on behalf of a new group calling itself the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). To give you a perspective on their ideology, NAGR Executive Director Dudley Brown calls the Brady Law (which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers) "dangerous" and "extreme" in a video on their homepage.

But I digress... Here's an excerpt from the letter:


Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we've never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama's gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he's supported over the years. It's only the first step...but it's a HUGE step. H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner—for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that's only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find yourself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too. The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

* Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

* Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

* Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.



I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

It is certainly appropriate for this letter to hit mailboxes as Halloween approaches. Because here-in are three of the gun lobby's biggest Boogeymen—Barack Obama, gun control and gun bans—all in one neat, scary package!

Never mind that the letter describes H.R. 45 as "Barack Obama's gun control package," even though it was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009, two weeks before the president was even inaugurated...

Never mind that H.R. 45 has no co-sponsors and has received no hearing in a House committee—meaning you're more likely to see a pig fly than this bill passing Congress...

Posted Image


Never mind that H.R. 45, "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is named after a young man who died heroically while shielding a young lady from gunfire on a Chicago bus; and fully supported by his surviving parents…...

Never mind that overwhelming majorities of Americans support licensing gun owners and registering firearms (79% and 77%, respectively)...

Never mind that virtually every other modern democracy licenses gun owners and registers firearms, and none of those reforms have led to "brutal dictators" or outright gun bans (although they have led to astronomically lower gun death rates than we have here in the U.S.)...

Never mind that a tougher screening process for gun purchasers might be a good idea in a country that routinely arms individuals who are clearly a threat to themselves and others…

I think you get the idea... While it is entertaining to see the lengths to which some groups will go to scare donors into sending cash, it is also an important reminder to all of us to check the facts whenever we receive alarming claims in fundraising appeals. It turns out that line between fantasy and reality isn't so fine after all...

Posted by stopgunviolence at 12:12 PM Posted Image
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#2 templar223

    Natural Born Infidel

  • Members
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 05

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:16 PM

<H2 class=date-header>Monday, October 19, 2009</H2><H3 class="post-title entry-title"><A href="http://csgv.blogspot...yman.html">Meet the Boogeyman </H3>Recently, I got hold of a fundraising letter that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) sent out on behalf of a new group calling itself the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). To give you a perspective on their ideology, NAGR Executive Director Dudley Brown calls the Brady Law (which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers) "dangerous" and "extreme" in a video on their homepage.

But I digress... Here's an excerpt from the letter:


Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we've never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama's gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he's supported over the years. It's only the first step...but it's a HUGE step. H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner—for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that's only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find yourself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too. The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

* Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

* Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

* Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.



I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

It is certainly appropriate for this letter to hit mailboxes as Halloween approaches. Because here-in are three of the gun lobby's biggest Boogeymen—Barack Obama, gun control and gun bans—all in one neat, scary package!

Never mind that the letter describes H.R. 45 as "Barack Obama's gun control package," even though it was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009, two weeks before the president was even inaugurated...

Never mind that H.R. 45 has no co-sponsors and has received no hearing in a House committee—meaning you're more likely to see a pig fly than this bill passing Congress...

Posted Image


Never mind that H.R. 45, "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is named after a young man who died heroically while shielding a young lady from gunfire on a Chicago bus; and fully supported by his surviving parents…...

Never mind that overwhelming majorities of Americans support licensing gun owners and registering firearms (79% and 77%, respectively)...

Never mind that virtually every other modern democracy licenses gun owners and registers firearms, and none of those reforms have led to "brutal dictators" or outright gun bans (although they have led to astronomically lower gun death rates than we have here in the U.S.)...

Never mind that a tougher screening process for gun purchasers might be a good idea in a country that routinely arms individuals who are clearly a threat to themselves and others…

I think you get the idea... While it is entertaining to see the lengths to which some groups will go to scare donors into sending cash, it is also an important reminder to all of us to check the facts whenever we receive alarming claims in fundraising appeals. It turns out that line between fantasy and reality isn't so fine after all...

Posted by stopgunviolence at 12:12 PM Posted Image




Got this today FW'd to me:


NAGRbanner


Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.

Over two months ago, the National Association for Gun Rights first broke this incredible tale out of Shreveport, Louisiana.

At the time, no other gun rights organization had touched the story. But when we tracked down the victim for an interview, we couldn't believe what we heard, and we immediately sent out a nationwide alert.

The story went viral overnight.

If this tale of government abuse moves you, send it to a friend or family member to get the word out.


According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.
Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.


Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?

1. Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.


I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.

While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

For Liberty,



Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. NAGR maintains a gun rights blog that our members use to keep abreast of current gun rights developments.

Whether the news is coming down from Congress, the states, the ATF, Michael Bloomberg, Eric Holder, or even this particular autocratic city official, Luke will keep you ahead of the game and up to speed on the battle for your gun rights.

To visit the blog, click here or point your browser to www.NationalGunRights.org/Blog.


To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

donate



For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

===============

"Donate" enhancements added.
Guns Save Life | GSL Defense Training

Guns Save Life meets the second Tuesday of each month at the Knights of Columbus in Rantoul, IL. Ask me how to get there! It's a great time. Join Guns Save Life today for some great benefits!

GSL Defense Training provides NRA Personal Protection in the Home courses that satisfy the training requirement for a Florida non-resident License to Carry, as well as intermediate-level pistol training and training in the use of Urban Rifles.

#3 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 27 October 2009 - 12:55 AM

I really wish they would stop doing this because some day when there really is a major threat people won't take it seriously because they're so p***** off from trying to sifer through all the bs.

I'm just telling my friends now when they ask about a certain peice of legislation that if it's Illinois legislation go to ISRA, and if it's U.S. legislation go to NRA and show them that link Uncle AB posted in my paranoid thread the other day.

Glenn Beck was saying the other day that they're hooking part of this onto the health care bill. He says it would make it so that you have to pay a tax on firearms and all that. Can't beleive he said that because usually he's good about doing research
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#4 Thirdpower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 27 October 2009 - 07:19 PM

Well the ICHV did just give Bobby an award for all his efforts. Along w/ numerous other gun grabbers:

ICHV also honored three Illinois leaders with the 2009 Legislative Advocacy Award. Congressman Bobby Rush (1st district), also a survivor of gun violence, his son Huey was shot and killed in 1999 continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions to gun violence. Rush is a sponsor of the of the “Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,”

Finally, Oak Park Village President David Pope has been a stalwart defender of his community's life-saving handgun ban along with Chicago and has pledged that regardless of the looming Supreme Court decision next summer, Oak Park is committed to enacting sensible and effective policies to reduce access to guns.


Full post here.

Isn't it cute how they talk about Bobby, former Black Panther and convicted criminal on gun charges, as a 'survivor of gun violence'?

#5 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 27 October 2009 - 07:42 PM

I got about half way through that letter and then I vomited. Sorry about the mess. :thumbsup:

I thought it was all pro 2nd Amendment and then he starts quoting false-facts and false-statistics from the Ants.

Respectfully, Sir (Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)), please hire an editor!

Effective rhetoric does not include reciting the Gun-Prohibitionist's (Ants) talking points!

Sheesh! B) B) B)
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#6 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 27 October 2009 - 07:55 PM

[... text elided...]
Never mind that overwhelming majorities of Americans support licensing gun owners and registering firearms (79% and 77%, respectively)...
[... text elided...]


This part is rubbish. I think it is perhaps a typo error or something. The majority of states permit citizen carry of arms. But this social "scientist" paper indicates that the people want more governmental control? It is illogical and irrational. I don't believe it.

Tvandermyde, please explain... what have I missed?

P.S. Here is from the "study":

Support for General Gun-Control and Gun-Safety Measures, 2001a:
Handguns for law enforcement only 49.1%


That "statistic" just doesn't ring true because most states don't infringe on the right to carry (they allow it). And the Supreme Court already ruled that people who are not law enforcement can have handguns (DC v. Heller, June 2008).

P.P.S. Now I see it. The "study" linked above was funded by the Joyce Foundation - an organization dedicated to prohibition of arms.

... The added questions on the regulation of firearms in 2006 were supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation.



Pfftt !! TRASH
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!