the Veterans Disarmament Act and the G.A.P. Act

[cryztalwing]

the Veterans Disarmament Act and the G.A.P. Act two major gun control law's that are comming up for a vote soon. The G.A.P. Act still need's to go throw the House, whill the Veterans Disarmament Act just need's to be pass the Senate.

 

 

 

News about the Veterans Disarmament Act

 

 

 

[hide]You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.

 

 

 

But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:

 

 

 

* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

 

 

 

* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.

 

 

 

Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.

 

 

 

This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!

 

 

 

But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE single senator can block it.

 

 

 

http://www.gunowners.org/a091207.htm[/hide]

 

 

 

News about the G.A.P Act..

 

 

 

[hide]With every passing year, the American people see more and more legislation that would place further limitations on our right to "keep and bear arms." Among other pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the 110th Congress thus far, the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act is of notable concern.

 

 

 

This bill (S. 456), introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and its companion bill (H.R. 1582), introduced by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), would further federalize the police system by creating a number of federal criminal offenses, including offenses categorized as "gang crimes." The bill would also authorize over $1 billion to create or expand federal programs. Though violent crimes are an issue in many states, especially in states with a larger population, they have traditionally been dealt with on a local and/or state level. The federal government should not usurp local authority by placing a new host of crimes under federal jurisdiction.

 

 

 

Aside from federalizing our police system, the Gang Abatement Act would also pose a threat to the Constitution, and more directly, the Second Amendment. For instance, Section 215 of S. 456 would deny the right of gun ownership to two categories of people:

 

 

 

Any person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor "gang related offense"

 

Any person found to be in contempt of a "gang injunction order"

 

 

 

Firstly, the bill does not clearly define what forms of a misdemeanor would prohibit a person from being denied their right to own and operate a firearm. Even in trivial matters, the Gang Abatement Act could deny an unknown number of people their gun ownership rights for the duration of their life. Secondly, a gang injunction order prohibits known gang members in specific geographic areas from participating in otherwise lawful activities. These activities could include congregating, wearing a gang insignia, or possessing alcohol. The effectiveness of gang injunctions are inconclusive and are a divided issue at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court has already set a precedent that such injunctions arbitrarily violate personal liberty and threaten the First Amendment. Merely violating an injunction without even committing an actual crime should not strip one of his/her right to carry firearms.

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10350646[/hide]

 

 

 

You can go to Gun Owners of America action center to send a message to your senator's to vote no on the the Veterans Disarmament Act.

 

 

 

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

 

 

 

You can go here to let Congress know that you want them to vote on the G.A.P. Act.

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10350646

[Darksavior69]

Shut the hell up with pushing your political bs.

[cryztalwing]

Sorry did not mean to make any one mad...

[llcoolguy972]

Mk... so it's bad to keep guns from someone with the attention span of a hamster? Or someone who thinks they're still in 'Nam? Guns are dangerous enough in normal hands, not to mention people with medical conditions... (or "medical" when it comes to ADHD) And the G.A.P. law would deny a gang member from getting a gun? Call me crazy, but I think that's a good thing...

[Giordano]

Mk... so it's bad to keep guns from someone with the attention span of a hamster? Or someone who thinks they're still in 'Nam? Guns are dangerous enough in normal hands, not to mention people with medical conditions... (or "medical" when it comes to ADHD) And the G.A.P. law would deny a gang member from getting a gun? Call me crazy, but I think that's a good thing...

[Flamecaller]

The only people who shouldn't be able to have guns is the mentally disabled (and kids, naturally). Everyone else knows full-well what they're doing when they hold a gun and fire it...Especially in someones direction. If they say they didn't, they are liars.

[IGoddessI]

The only people who shouldn't be able to have guns is the mentally disabled (and kids, naturally). Everyone else knows full-well what they're doing when they hold a gun and fire it...Especially in someones direction. If they say they didn't, they are liars.

 

 

 

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[darkblade986]

Shut the hell up with pushing your political bs.

 

 

 

If you don't like these kind of topics, then don't open them. These boards are not owned, controlled or operated by you and so you do not have a say over what people can or cannot post. This topic provides legitimate discussion over a proposed government action, and if you do not like such discussion, do not comment on them.

 

 

 

Simply saying "shut up" has no discussion value what-so-ever. If you have a legitimate argument with regards to these proposed regulations, then by all means, post them. NEVER should you tell someone to shut up because you don't like their point of view or their choice of discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

Now then, getting on topic: The only time that the use of guns should be restricted is whether a safety risk can be indisputably proven. No one person should be immediately prevented from owning a gun (barring age regulations, say 18+; 14+ if they've passed a special gun safety course or something, and then only with guardian supervision). All people should have to go through mental screenings, criminal checks and prove an understanding of how to safely use a gun. Any issue that comes up should be scrutinized until it can be determined whether the person can safely use a gun.

 

 

 

Also, I believe that any type of criminal action that results in any kind of chronological punishment (Community Service, days in jail, probation, etc) should become immediately ineligible from owning or controlling a gun for at least 10 years.

 

 

 

That's about all I have to say on this topic.

[Darksavior69]

Shut the hell up with pushing your political bs.

 

 

 

If you don't like these kind of topics, then don't open them. These boards are not owned, controlled or operated by you and so you do not have a say over what people can or cannot post. This topic provides legitimate discussion over a proposed government action, and if you do not like such discussion, do not comment on them.

 

 

 

Simply saying "shut up" has no discussion value what-so-ever. If you have a legitimate argument with regards to these proposed regulations, then by all means, post them. NEVER should you tell someone to shut up because you don't like their point of view or their choice of discussion.

 

Allowing topics like these opens the forums to people just making topics to push some political agenda. The topics he has been making aren't made as discussions, they're made pushing an agenda with him providing no insight of his own or basis for discussion. We don't need the forum full of people lobbying for/against arbitrary crap.

[Hi9im8Here7]

Mk... so it's bad to keep guns from someone with the attention span of a hamster? Or someone who thinks they're still in 'Nam? Guns are dangerous enough in normal hands, not to mention people with medical conditions... (or "medical" when it comes to ADHD) And the G.A.P. law would deny a gang member from getting a gun? Call me crazy, but I think that's a good thing...

 

 

 

Maybe its just me, but I don't see every kid with ADHD going out and shooting someone...

[Lionheart_0]

No one has guns.

 

 

 

Problem solved.

[IGoddessI]

No one has guns.

 

 

 

Problem solved.

 

 

 

 

 

Awwe you're so hired on my next hippy adventure :P

[Lionheart_0]

No one has guns.

 

 

 

Problem solved.

 

 

 

 

 

Awwe you're so hired on my next hippy adventure :P

 

 

 

Woot :

[The Real ET]

Hmmm... I do see how the Veterans Disarmament Act can be seen as Constitution infringing. Both parts would deny the 2nd Amendment to people who have (yet) to do anything to prove they shouldn't own a gun.

 

 

 

The thing about rights is that everyone is entitled to them, unless they use their rights to infringe on another person's rights. So, the Gang Abatement Act sounds pretty good as we would take guns out of the hands of gang criminals. Everyone is entitled to their rights, and the right to life is often infringed by those who we would be taking the guns away from. Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:

[tryto]

Yes. All the gang members that shoot people buy their guns completely legally, sign all the papers, and register their identities.

 

 

 

Right.This wouldnt do anything but hurt legitimate gun owners.

 

I bet most of teh guns used to kill people are illegally bought and sold anyways. Its a political bill, just for show. Puh-Lease.

 

 

 

Well, here in Canada, handguns are illegal, but Toronto is the fastest growing murder rate in the 3rd World.

[Guest]

We don't need guns in our houses it's not the flipping colonial times anymore. That "right to bear arms" was written when you actually needed a gun for protection or for food. All guns should be banned and destroyed.

[hatebringer]

Mk... so it's bad to keep guns from someone with the attention span of a hamster? Or someone who thinks they're still in 'Nam? Guns are dangerous enough in normal hands, not to mention people with medical conditions... (or "medical" when it comes to ADHD) And the G.A.P. law would deny a gang member from getting a gun? Call me crazy, but I think that's a good thing...

 

 

 

Whoever doesn't agree with this.... :notalk:

[Unoalexi]

These 'articles' are HORRIBLY biased.... -.-

[forsaken]

Why the right to bear arms is still constitutionalised in America, I'll never know. In the modern day and age, that effectively translates to providing a means for people to shoot or kill other people.

[assassin_696]

Yeah, I mean God forbid anyone should ever limit the sale of a lethal weapon to some people, you might actually go out at night.

[ltb2006]

We don't need guns in our houses it's not the flipping colonial times anymore. That "right to bear arms" was written when you actually needed a gun for protection or for food. All guns should be banned and destroyed.

[dsk803]

this will only keep them from getting guns legally if they really want em theres plenty of illegal ways to get them...

[Bubsa]

Shut the hell up with pushing your political bs.

 

 

 

If you don't like these kind of topics, then don't open them. These boards are not owned, controlled or operated by you and so you do not have a say over what people can or cannot post. This topic provides legitimate discussion over a proposed government action, and if you do not like such discussion, do not comment on them.

 

 

 

Well, actually, no. No it doesn't. I mean, does the OT add any arguement towards this? No. Was any of the post not plagiarised or lifted from a news site? Nope. If you count the article itself for room to discuss then, unless someone has some phobia of a news website or paper, discussion already exists.

[StrOwez]

 

 

 

If you don't like these kind of topics, then don't open them. These boards are not owned, controlled or operated by you and so you do not have a say over what people can or cannot post. This topic provides legitimate discussion over a proposed government action, and if you do not like such discussion, do not comment on them.

 

 

 

Simply saying "shut up" has no discussion value what-so-ever. If you have a legitimate argument with regards to these proposed regulations, then by all means, post them. NEVER should you tell someone to shut up because you don't like their point of view or their choice of discussion.

 

If you don't like the post don't spam the topic with your 'information' about the forum rules. hey..why not just report it and or PM the person you have a problem with, no need to put them in the spotlight.

 

These boards may not be owned by me but I am a user of the website, which provides revenue through advertising traffic. So hence I do have a say in the matter, because without users you wouldn't have this website.

 

 

 

Legitimate discussion??? What about.. an upcoming discussion of a law that's TRYING TO BE passed through the government...should we make a topic on each law trying to be passed through, there are about 10 laws trying to be passed a day in the house of lords.

 

 

 

oh and here's a scenario

 

 

 

Person A: 'Paris Hilton is the best'

 

 

 

Person B: 'Shut up'

 

 

 

Person A: "NEVER should you tell someone to shut up because you don't like their point of view or their choice of discussion."

 

 

 

Person B: well wouldn't that be hypocritical as you're telling the person to shut up whilst telling that person not to tell another to shut up?

[Satenza]

Oh shut the hell up.

 

 

 

I would be for this as guns really serve no purpose. We have seen the statistics of gun deaths a year compared to places like the UK. The number one priority of the government is protection of the individual. I think sacrificing the right for the individual to bear arms is more important than 300 people a year or something ludicrous from dying at the hands of them.