In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A letter to an eliteist idiot ....
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
I send this to billy boy O'Reilly last night. Hope he chokes on it .. A bit wordy, but he thinks he is quite intellectual..
Let me start off here O'reilly,
You don't have a clue about the constitution. Have you ever wondered why there are more than 70 MILLION gun owners and only 3 million NRA members? Because the NRA does NOT support the second amendment. Most gun owners are smart enough to know there are no limitations to a right. There ARE responsibilities, NOT limitations. Don't be a pinhead Mr.O. You want to take the Brady campains side, so be it. If you do however, please note you are NOT being a patriot. If one were to put limitations on the First amendment you would be up in arms! You are quite the hypocrite sometimes. HYPOCRITE I said! Please see the following letter from Ron Paul about the matter of FREEDOM (which you don't seem to understand the concept of).I challenge YOU to debate HIM on this matter.
Also see this website for further PROOF as to why the NRA does NOT support the second amendment . www.KeepAndBearArms.com I don't know who YOU think your looking out for, but I suspect it is yourself (you an eliteist?). I await your "intellectual" reply.
P.S. Maybe you should read more about the founders so you may be "educated". Mr. Ben Franklin said"Those that would give up liberty for saftey, deserve neither".
Security and Liberty by Ron Paul
April 23, 2007
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn't matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
Let me start off here O'reilly,
You don't have a clue about the constitution. Have you ever wondered why there are more than 70 MILLION gun owners and only 3 million NRA members? Because the NRA does NOT support the second amendment. Most gun owners are smart enough to know there are no limitations to a right. There ARE responsibilities, NOT limitations. Don't be a pinhead Mr.O. You want to take the Brady campains side, so be it. If you do however, please note you are NOT being a patriot. If one were to put limitations on the First amendment you would be up in arms! You are quite the hypocrite sometimes. HYPOCRITE I said! Please see the following letter from Ron Paul about the matter of FREEDOM (which you don't seem to understand the concept of).I challenge YOU to debate HIM on this matter.
Also see this website for further PROOF as to why the NRA does NOT support the second amendment . www.KeepAndBearArms.com I don't know who YOU think your looking out for, but I suspect it is yourself (you an eliteist?). I await your "intellectual" reply.
P.S. Maybe you should read more about the founders so you may be "educated". Mr. Ben Franklin said"Those that would give up liberty for saftey, deserve neither".
Security and Liberty by Ron Paul
April 23, 2007
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn't matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
Comments
Good job!!!! Next time run it through your spell checker first. You know how nit picky the left can be. If they have no intellectual response they will make a personal attack on the first thing they find. Again, good job. That will be his second challenge in as many days. Maybe he'll get the message.
There is always going to be loud voices agaist our cause. They have radio and TV shows that get the message out to millions of people. We just have to Stand Strong and Unite.
what exactly is Our Cause?
Mine is Liberty and a slow death to all those that stand in the way, be it a US Senator, ATF agent, school teacher, presidential candidate, whoever.
as it was mentioned in other threads, you can't do this on your own. people in their majority aren't ready, even the number Highball talks about, i don't believe it's there. while people are fed and warm and have a roof over their heads they aren't going to do anything, besides the fact that nearly a third of population now are recent immigrants with their ideologies so neither they nor their children will ever join the fight.
[quote
as it was mentioned in other threads, you can't do this on your own. people in their majority aren't ready, even the number Highball talks about, i don't believe it's there. while people are fed and warm and have a roof over their heads they aren't going to do anything, besides the fact that nearly a third of population now are recent immigrants with their ideologies so neither they nor their children will ever join the fight.
SR, I keep hearing you say there are NOT enough .Think only 1% of 70 million . THAT is 700,000 Patriots willing to stand. You think one little percent is that hard to raise? Remember in the revolution there were at least 3 percent. That is a large militia in todays numbers. Especially considering this would be a gurella war. Alcrappa ain't got nothing on us.
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
SR, support for what? Comprimise? We allready have comprimised and it does not work. It has proven fatal to Liberty to comprimise. While I used to think the "soft" war was the way, I see like highball, that it will not work. Things have just degraded to far.
if you were paying attention to anything i've said among my 120 posts you'd probably see what exactly _i_ support. however, trying to break a concrete wall with your head will only gain you a headache. not to mention treating everyone like an idiot instead of trying to educate people will also gain you a whole bunch of friends. anyways, i am russian, i don't get it remember? neither Paine nor Jefferson nor Adams-Hamilton-Jay... oh yeah, i probably don't know jack stuff of American history either, because i have "russian" in an internet friggen handle. <rant off />
1 I give not a rip to make "friends" and have fuzzy thoughts directed toward me, IF that requires comprimising Liberty and morals. Liberty isn't about that. Respect for fellow Americans, yes.
2 Oddly enough I HAVE read what the founders said. My particular interst is Jefferson. They were not comprimisers. They tried redress with the king, just like we have , for a great deal of time, like we have. Look at the stamp act. Just one thing taxed caused an uproar. What can you buy now that is NOT taxed at some point? Now EXACTLY how much would those said founders "comprimise" on the 2nd Amendment? Either you become passionate about what happened and what Liberty is supposed to be, or you read history like a comic book. That is to say either it means everything to you OR it is just entertainment. There is no middle ground to a feeling like that. Based on what I see you post, I must presume the latter. Not because I want to pick on you, but because it SHOULD enstill great emotion inside your very being.
The daunting challenge for them today would be trying to actually replicate the essence of what they originally achieved back then, now in the 21st century. And, the roll call of the Founding Fathers today would no doubt be dramatically different from that back in the late 1700's. White, Black. Hispanic. Asian. Native American. Middle Eastern. Etc. Protestant. Catholic. Jewish. Taoist. Muslim. Buddhist. Mormon. 7th Day Adventist. Scientologists. Atheist. Etc.
It would be a very spirited "committee" indeed.
To: oreilly@foxnews.com
Cc: hannity@foxnews.com ; friends@foxnews.com
Please Take Time To Read This. You Gave Him The Platform To Go Nation-wide with it, now at least read why I think it's wrong and you should provide equal time to opposing views.
My Name
City, State
Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.
Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.
All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.
You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.
He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."
Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.
In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)
On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:
1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately
prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.
2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.
3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard
massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 - a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have here.)
McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS
HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a
"prohibited person."
Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrant-less searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.
In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.
And all of these personal records would be obtained, by the FBI, with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.
As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so
open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.
The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be
relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
ACTION:
1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.
House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen. Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.
Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun
rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.
2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297, the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban, reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).
In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on law-abiding Americans like me.
How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which dwarfs any warrant-less searches (or wiretaps) that have been
conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.
And all of this personal information would be obtained, by the FBI, with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun owners is good?
Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America will continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
****************************
Streaming Video Update
It's an ongoing process of getting permissions, obtaining source discs, and formatting files, but we are continuing to post videos of GOA spokesmen on television as they become available. Please stop by our streaming video section at http://www.gunowners.org/svtb.htm to see what's new this week.
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=83798624&queueid=1162424131.