• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the McCarthy bill: The REAL story on how it got passed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the McCarthy bill: The REAL story on how it got passed

    In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said:
    "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
    Following his advice to know your enemy, I subscribed to the Brady Campaign's email propaganda.

    In case there is any doubt as to whether H.R. 2640, the McCarthy bill that was recently passed at midnight by a secret vote in both chambers of Congress "Helps gunowners and protects our right to arms," as the NRA is claiming, here is what the Brady Campaign has to say about H.R. 2640:



    Victory!
    U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System


    Bill Now Moves to President's Desk: Please Call Today


    Dear ________,


    Great news! Last night, Congress passed a bill that will strengthen the Brady background check system. It will help ensure that fewer guns end up in the hands of dangerous people like felons and those who have been found to be a threat to themselves or others because of mental illness.

    After the Virginia Tech tragedy, with your help, we asked our national leaders, "What are YOU going to do about gun violence?"

    The tide is turning. Yesterday, Congress passed the first major piece of legislation to reduce gun violence in over a decade — and congratulations are in order: you, our donors and activists, helped make this victory possible. Thank you!

    The "National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640) was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and House [AKA secret voice vote], and now goes to the President's desk for signature.

    PLEASE CALL PRESIDENT BUSH TODAY AT 202-456-1111
    Urge Him to Sign the NICS Improvement Act Immediately
    Give the Virginia Tech families this victory before the New Year



    This legislation was passed in response to the Virginia Tech massacre. The killer was able to arm himself because the court order that should have blocked his gun purchase was not reported to the national Brady background check system.

    We deeply appreciate the courage and strength of the Virginia Tech victims. On October 16, many of the Virginia Tech families joined Brady President Paul Helmke and me on Capitol Hill calling for passage of this legislation — the efforts of all the families involved were crucial to this victory.

    Our special thanks go out to Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) for their work on this legislation.

    Much work lies ahead with the implementation of this legislation and our efforts to make the Brady background check system as strong as it can and should be. I know I can count on you to help us make future victories possible.

    Click here for more information on the NICS Improvement Act.

    Thank you again and happy holidays.

    Sincerely,

    Sarah Brady, Chair
    Please consider the following: The fact that this travesty was passed by secret voice vote ["Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." - Robert Heinlein] is irrelevant. What is relevant is that was passed by unanimous consent. That means EVERYBODY [at least everybody in the SENATE] agreed to it.

    Do you want to get rid of the traitors in Congress next election? Since EVERYBODY in the Senate agreed to pass the McCarthy bill, it sort of looks to me like they are ALL traitors - EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!

    Since "everybody" supposedly agreed to pass H.R. 2640, this brings up a couple of questions in my mind, to wit:

    1: Did Ron Paul also vote to pass the McCarthy bill by unanimous concent?

    2: If he did not, how did they get around that? If he said no, how is it unanimous consent??

    I just got off the phone with Congressman Paul's office in DC and according to Adam Dick, who is on Dr. Paul's staff, here are the answers:

    1: No, Dr, Paul DID NOT AGREE to pass the McCarthy bill. In fact, he wasn't even in the House when it was passed at midnight on Tuesday. When H.R. 2640 was initially presented in the House, Dr. Paul stood up and spoke against it. Regarding H.R. 2640, Ron Paul's hands are clean - period.

    2: How did McCarthy and her maggots get around his opposition? Here's how: The House had adjourned for the year. There were approximately ten House members in the house chamber - special order speeches were being given. Over in the Senate, Coburn finally caved and agreed to pass the McCarthy bill at a little before midnight, giving the Senate its unanimous consent.

    At that point, McCarthy hauled @$$ from the Senate to the House chamber, broke in on the special order speeches and put H.R. 2640 up for a vote. They had waited and watched until no opposing House members were present to do this.

    This way, they would get a unanimous consent vote by voice - "unanimous consent" means unanimous consent of the members present at that instant, not unanimous consent of each and every one of the 435 members of the House.

    On the Democrat side, McCarthy controlled their 5 minutes that are allowed for each special order speech. On the Republican side, Rep. Price of Georgia controlled the 5 minutes allowed for their rebuttal. Price is a McCarthy bill supporter, so there was no rebuttal, no debate, no recorded vote. This is how McCarthy and Price circumvented debate on the bill and got a unanimous vote.

    According to Adam Dick of Dr. Paul's staff, it was a done deal in a minute and a half. He said even if those who opposed the bill were in their offices monitoring the proceedings on closed circut TV (which they do), thanks to the tag team of McCarthy and Price, an opposing Congressman would have never made it to the House chamber in time to oppose the vote and stop H.R. 2640's passage.

    You wnat to know who stabbed us in the back? "Republican" Representative Price of Georgia - there's your traitor (along with the entire U.S. Senate, the Brady maggots, VPC scumbags, the NRA and the proverbial "cast of thousands" who helped out).

    So there you go: The House was adjourned for the year, ten antigun bigots were present at midnight, no debate, no opposition, no recorded vote, H.R. 2640 is rammed through in nintey seconds. This is how the Political Class operates.

    They will stop at nothing to destroy our right to arms.

    Was it technically lawful and Constitutional? According to Adam Dick, it was. HOWEVER: He also said that a unanimous consent with no recorded vote is and has always been intended for use regarding bills where the House is in full agreement on passage BEFORE a vote is called for.

    Using this procedure to pass a bill that has known opposition from other House members is a cheap shot. It is dirty pool. It is stabbing your peers in the back and McCarthy and Price know it and they don't care. They got what they wanted, and that's all that matters.

    The problem with H.R. 2640 is that, in the words of Adam Dick, "It will establish a government-controlled national database of EVERYBODY." Not just gun owners - but EVERYBODY. This database will include criminal history records and ALL medical records that can and will be used by "The Government" for THEM to decide whether or not you are "fit" to purchase a gun.

    The McCarthy bill is BAD news - period.

    What's even worse though, is the doors it will open for the antigun bigots of the Political Class.

    Think about the ramifications of this:
    Antidepressant medications are the number one most prescribed class of med in the United States. If you have ever been on any of these meds, "The Government" could look at its database and decide that as a result, you are not "fit" to purchase a gun. In one fell swoop, "The Government" can declare a vast segment - likely 100 million or so - of the American people "unfit" to purchase a gun.

    Undoubetedly, the tens of millions of children who were forced to take Ritalin or similar psychotrophic drugs for a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD would also be "unfit" to ever purchase a gun - all before they are even old enough to legally do so!!

    The same applies to any form of care by a psychiatrist. The same applies to any counseling you may have undergone with a psychologist, marriage counselor, LCSW, or family counselor for any reason.

    Did your father suddenly drop dead from a heart attack? Did it traumatize you, depress you and cause you grief for which you sought counseling? "The Government" could use that information from its database to declare you "unfit" to purchase a gun.

    Of course, keeping as many people as possible from purchasing any new guns is just the first step. If a person is "unfit" to purchase a new gun, aren't they also "unfit" to possess the firearms they already own? That "loophole" (tm) will have to be closed. There's only one way to achieve that.

    You can see where this is going. All it will take to make it a reality is to put someone like Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson in the White House in 2008 and get control of the Senate and the House in the hands of the antigun/antifreedom bigots.

    Once that's accomplished, GUN CONFISCATIONS will follow - and soon.

    We all can now see how the antigun Political Class operates. They completely and totally reject the restraints placed upon them by the Constitution. They don't give a rat's @$$ about the rights of the people or the will of the people. Their outlook is "We'll do whatever the "F" we want and you'll like it."

    If this doesn't get gun owners to pull their heads out of their @$$es and vote for Ron Paul in 2008, I don't know what will.
    "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

  • #2
    This is the thing that concerns me. I AM ON AN ANTIDEPRESSANT RIGHT NOW. Is Rx by my family doc. I am not afraid to admit it either. Have been so for about four or five years. Will probably be on it for the rest of my life. I would not take a million dollars for what the meds have done for me. Have got my life back. They have helped me overcome the feelings of helplessness and lack of interest in everything in my life (hobbies, going to the range, hiking etc). Before all I ever did was just lay on the couch and daydream, watch tv. Now, I did work, and was completely functional, just damn depressed and sad, yet couldn't put my finger on it. Praying didn't help. That is what God gives us doctors and scientists for, to help us. I NEVER have thought of using a weapon on myself or anyone else.

    So, now that is out of the bag publicly, I am going to say that this is the number one reason I have disowned the NRA following years 15+ as a member. I am just waiting til the time I am declared incompetent to own a gun. Oh, and by the way, what I do for a living is working as an RN 10years+ in a psychiatric hospital.
    THA - member #069
    KGC - member #11



    WHY ME WHEN THERE IS AN ATHEIST JUST DOWN THE STREET?!?!


    http://www.warrifles.com
    One great place.

    Comment


    • #3
      They are real fond of those secret voice votes w/ no count of hands which is decided soley by the Chair (Pelosi) who is a bigger commie than Clinton

      Comment


      • #4
        Here's whay GOA has to say

        Here's what Gun Owners of America has to say about the McCarthy bill:

        "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" --
        Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007


        ------------------------------------------------------------------

        Thursday, December 20, 2007

        Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back
        yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his
        congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called
        "compromise" on
        HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

        The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents --
        is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady
        Campaign.


        The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady
        Background Check System."
        The NRA stated that last minute changes to
        the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end
        product is a win for American gun owners."


        But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this
        legislation.

        The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
        you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical
        finding of
        disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity"
        for some sort
        of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other
        than a court).
        Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist
        himself.


        Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have
        to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The
        veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an
        attorney financed by the government.

        So what do the proponents have to say about this?

        ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
        prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

        ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
        numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
        the right to own a firearm.

        And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
        spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
        the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

        More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right
        hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides
        a process
        for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
        get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
        subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
        only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous
        to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE
        CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."
        (Emphasis added.)

        Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like
        California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where
        citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only
        says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such
        leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

        Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these
        people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been
        illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting
        relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

        Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton
        Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady
        Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.


        But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal
        actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily
        barred from possessing firearms.


        True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
        rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't
        have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
        inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
        thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
        wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.


        Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a
        veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
        Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

        The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
        yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
        passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White
        House.

        Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise"
        deal helped the original Brady Law get passed.
        In 1993, there were
        only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a
        Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady
        bill to President Clinton
        -- at a time when most legislators had
        already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

        Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to
        read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

        With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of
        fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited
        resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady
        Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and
        were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of
        that shooting.

        Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away.
        GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding
        Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the
        books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the
        House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.

        So our appeal to you is this -- please help us to grow this coming
        year. Please help us to get more members and activists. If you add
        $10 to your membership renewal this year, we can reach new gun owners
        in the mail and tell them about GOA.

        Please urge your friends to join GOA... and, at the very least, make
        sure they sign up for our free e-mail alerts so that we can mobilize
        more gun owners than ever before!
        If you are not already a member of GOA - please join now!!

        GOA and JPFO are apparently the only major right to arms organizations that actually care about our right to arms. I really can no longer say the same about the NRA after this. And I'm a Patron Life member of the NRA, I'm no "Larry Pratt Kool-aid drinker" as some call anyone who takes issue with the NRA on their treason against the Bill of Rights.

        From now on, it will be one cold day in h*ll before the NRA gets one red cent of my money. I'd resign my membership if my d@mn range & gun club did not require you to be an NRA member to be a range member. I'm going to see if I can get them to expand this requirement to "either NRA, GOA or JPFO."

        Here is GOA's website http://www.gunowners.org/

        Here is JPFO's website http://www.jpfo.org/

        Please join one - or both - today!
        "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

        "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

        Comment


        • #5
          call your Senators and Congresspeople and register your distaste. They're home on vacation, now is the time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just did a fax merge to all my reps and senators with the following text: I suggest all of you do the same if you cannot fax get an efax account ( http://efax.com ) or call their offices and tell them:

            Get all your reps and senator information by entering your zip code here: http://gunowners.org/activism.htm

            ---------

            "I wanted to take the time to register my complete and utter distaste with the sneak passage of H.R. 2640 by the despicable anti-gun lobby. As a law abiding gun owner, veteran, business owner, husband and father I find that this type of maneuver should be disallowed in Congress - PERIOD.


            The Parliamentary tricks that were used to pass this bill are an affront to the People, it could not have passed in full session and the sponsors KNEW IT COULDN'T WHICH IS WHY THIS WAS DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. The bill was passed in 90 seconds with no debate.

            I expect THAT YOU ACT IMMEDIATELY TO REPEAL THIS SHAMEFUL PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

            I would like a written reply or phone call from your office and to inform me of how YOU intend to remedy this situation.

            When you took office you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Here is the Second Amendment as a refresher:

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Merry Christmas
            Last edited by Teotwawki; 12-21-2007, 02:46 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              What always amazes me is the fact that we can never get any Pro-Gun bills passed using that same strategy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Pretty nasty way to pass a bill. But then, what can be expected from the Left?

                If this doesn't get gun owners to pull their heads out of their @$$es and vote for Ron Paul in 2008, I don't know what will.
                No offense, but while the 2nd Amendment is a vitally important issue, it is not the sole issue in elections. Candidates stances on other issues should also be noted. Merely because a candidate is extremely pro-gun, he should not automatically be the next President of the United States.

                Ron Paul is for the legalization of narcotics. Legalization of some drugs that are currently a crime to posses. He also is of the opinion that the United States should not stop Iran from building nukes. (But then, I just got the impression from Ron Paul speaking on the O'Reilly Factor. Research that for yourself.) Was the Cold War, the 'tension' between the US and the USSR fun? Just because nuclear M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the communists, it doesn't guarantee the Muslims jihadists will follow suit if we allow them make nukes.

                Ron Paul isn't really strictly a Republican, is he? More of a Libertarian.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Captain92....that admission took some balls! I tip my hat to you sir!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dr. Paul doesn't support the use of narcotics. What he supports is the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government the authority to regulate what a citizen puts in his own body. If they had that authority, why did they go to the trouble of banning alcohol with an amendment? Simple legislation would have been much easier. But they knew it wasn't legal.

                    The greatest protections we have against a police state are the ninth and tenth amendments. Dr. Paul is the only candidate in my lifetime who takes them seriously.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AndrewWesley View Post
                      Pretty nasty way to pass a bill. But then, what can be expected from the Left?



                      No offense, but while the 2nd Amendment is a vitally important issue, it is not the sole issue in elections. Candidates stances on other issues should also be noted. Merely because a candidate is extremely pro-gun, he should not automatically be the next President of the United States.

                      Ron Paul is for the legalization of narcotics. Legalization of some drugs that are currently a crime to posses. He also is of the opinion that the United States should not stop Iran from building nukes. (But then, I just got the impression from Ron Paul speaking on the O'Reilly Factor. Research that for yourself.) Was the Cold War, the 'tension' between the US and the USSR fun? Just because nuclear M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the communists, it doesn't guarantee the Muslims jihadists will follow suit if we allow them make nukes.

                      Ron Paul isn't really strictly a Republican, is he? More of a Libertarian.

                      What he is in favor of is "INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY" which means that individual citizens are free to determine what they choose to do and will accept the consequences for their actions resulting from that responsibility.. he is not "FOR" legalizing illegal drugs he is for removing federal govt interference in your individual choices to be responsible citizens and restoring the authority to regulate to the states where it was intended to be.. His ENTIRE platform is based on the constitutionality of federal govt decisions.. if you want to nuke Iran to prevent them from developing nukes then you had better get your crooked congress critter to vote for a declaration of war to do it.

                      He has clearly stated his requirement for constitutionality every time I've heard him speak so why do you keep misquoting or mistating his intentions ??

                      The federal govt has no authority not explicitly granted to it by the constitution except those we surrendered to it.. show me where they got this authority legally.

                      btw.. he is, at this juncture in time, more qualified to call himself or be identified as a Republican than any other supposed member of that now mostly liberal collection of politico's.
                      no woman, no problems.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by yank View Post
                        What he is in favor of is "INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY" which means that individual citizens are free to determine what they choose to do and will accept the consequences for their actions resulting from that responsibility.. he is not "FOR" legalizing illegal drugs he is for removing federal govt interference in your individual choices to be responsible citizens and restoring the authority to regulate to the states where it was intended to be.. His ENTIRE platform is based on the constitutionality of federal govt decisions.. if you want to nuke Iran to prevent them from developing nukes then you had better get your crooked congress critter to vote for a declaration of war to do it.

                        He has clearly stated his requirement for constitutionality every time I've heard him speak so why do you keep misquoting or mistating his intentions ??

                        The federal govt has no authority not explicitly granted to it by the constitution except those we surrendered to it.. show me where they got this authority legally.

                        btw.. he is, at this juncture in time, more qualified to call himself or be identified as a Republican than any other supposed member of that now mostly liberal collection of politico's.
                        Ookayy... so, he is against the legalization of certain drugs, and is for the US preventing Iran from making nuclear weapons?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Technicality!

                          Under HR2460, what happens to an LEO who has to use deadly force and is required by the Dept. or Agency to see the shrink afterward? Will the use of deadly force with the issued firearm and consequent visit to the shrink result in the officer/agent being disallowed to possess a firearm?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Captain92, thank you for your courage in sharing. I am a recovering alcoholic, and I too expect that "drug addiction or dependency, past or present, whether licit or illicit" will become a disqualifying condition. Relapse is always possible, doncha know....


                            It's the camel's nose under the tent, folks. Gradualism is the bad guys' MO, and they are good at it.

                            Next steps will be to

                            1) expand the disqualifying conditions

                            2) use data mining to link "public statements" (read "gun board posts") with particular gun owners

                            3) employ .gov pshrinks to "assess" those gun owners on a preliminary basis (think "psychological profiling" a la serial killers - the Feebs will love this sh*t)

                            4) bring civil actions to require the gun owners to either relinquish their weapons or "permit" a full-scale psychological "assessment"

                            5) Upon completion of the assessment, bring or threaten to bring a "weapons decertification" proceeding, which will remove the gun owner's weapons and bar him from future acquistions

                            6) Concurrently with steps 2-5 above, socialist states (Neu Jersey, Illinois, Neu York, Kalifornia, People's Republic of Massachussetts, etc.) will enact "firearm safety certification" requirements, which will feature a mental health evaluation by an "impartial" .gov pshrink. This certification will be required to purchase any firearm in that state, and must be renewed every two years.

                            "If it saves one life" and "it's for the children", indeed.....

                            Tempus fugit.
                            Last edited by cabinboy; 12-21-2007, 07:24 PM. Reason: clarity

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              DOUBLE STANDARD

                              3) employ .gov pshrinks to "assess" those gun owners on a preliminary basis (think "psychological profiling" a la serial killers - the Feebs will love this sh*t)
                              Profiling potential terrorists is a crime against humanity, but profiling gun owners is fine and dandy, huh?
                              "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

                              "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X