ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:
1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)
2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.
3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill. Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.
The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.
On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.
Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."
Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.
First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.
"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-" rating by GOA.
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I’ve never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
The Second Amendment is not a grant of any right or priviledge. Rather, it is a RESTRICTION of governmental power. It restricts the government from infringing on the [already pre-existing, inalienable God-given] right to both keep (own) and BEAR arms (weapons).
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to place within the federal Constitution a prohibition on the government's ability to impede the people's right to be armed in the event of insurrection or invasion.
On April 19th, 1775, government law enforcement went to Concord to seize the militia stockpile of weapons. This was the time of Paul Revere's famous "the British are coming" ride. At Lexington Green, on April 19th, civilian militiamen opened fire on government troops who had come to disarm the people.
As a result, April 19th has for a long time been known as Patriot's Day.
Those who argue the Second Amendment protects the rights of people to engage in "sport shooting" or hunting are completely ignorant of the real purpose of "keeping and bearing arms". The Second Amendment makes no mention of hunting or sport shooting.
It says "a well regulated militia being necesary to the security of a free state..." which means that a well supplied armed citizenry is necessary to have a free country.
The founding fathers placed within the core government charter of our country the truth that an armed civilian population is NECESSARY to have a free country.
Freedom in America is not guaranteed by the existence of the US military, the threat of massive military retaliation against foreign attackers, or any such thing. Rather, FREEDOM is guaranteed (according to the Constitution) by the existence of a well equipped armed civilian population.
"Well regulated" does not mean "strangled by governmental regulations and ordinances", but means equipped. The term regulated referred to logistics and supply.
Furthermore, current federal laws regarding firearms ownership are contrary to the original intent, not to mention the plain letter, of the Constitution.
The recent Federal Appeals case in Parker vs DC proved this, when it was declared that the types of arms which are guaranteed to the people are the common military weapons of the day suitable to an individual soldier - which means individual, soldier-operated and soldier carried weapons. Which in turn means any weapon a single soldier can be outfitted with is a suitable milita weapon.
The "hunting or sporting purposes" requirement placed on import and manufacturing (as well as the 1968 ban on manufacturing of full automatic weapons) is thus unConsitutional. The older Supreme Court "Miller" case also clearly implies this.
Furthermore, the militia was not and is not the NAtional Guard. The Supreme Court as well as most State constitutions maintain that the militia is "all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 capable of bearing arms" at least (this is the Federal Militia law). Texas, for example, extends that to age 65 I believe, and most legal authorities recognise the application of milita law to women as well as men. Property owning requirements for membership in the state or federal militia have been dropped, as far as I know.
In other words, if you are an able bodied adult between 18 and 45, you are in the militia already.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one....
vs 38 And they said, Lord, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
Here was a church (or "proto church" for the semi-Campbellites among us, heheh) that was armed.
Imagine that, a church instructed by their pastor to even sell their clothes to go buy military weapons. It should also be noted that there were two swords among the 12, and the Lord said it was enough. No need for overkill...
In Matthew 26, when Peter attempted to use armed force to prevent His arrest, the Lord told him not to do so, but to "put up thy swod in its place". In other words, to sheath his sword. Jesus was opposed to the use of force to prevent His arrest (which would interfere in His mission of Atonement) but commanded Peter to sheath (holster) his weapon. He did NOT tell him to "Get rid of that horrible instrument of death"...
Joel 3:10 contains Divine instructions for people to manufacture their own military weapons.
1 Samuel 13:19-22 contains an example of oppressive foreign government disarming the people. It also points out that both Saul and Jonathan had illegal (prohibited) weapons. It also shows that disarming the populace is a method used by tyrants to help ensure their tyranny.
There is more, and the Bible is definitely CLEAR about the subject of "gun ownership" and the use of guns.
Swords and spears were military weapons, not "sporting or hunting" devices.
It appears that some question the trust of those who are for carrying a weapon if need be.
Here is what I trust in: I trust in the Lord God Almighty to supply my needs. At times, He uses others to do that.
I trust in the Lord God Almighty for my healing. At times He uses Doctors to bring that about.
I trust in the Lord God Almighty for protection. At times He uses law enforcement to do that.
There have been countless HG filled people who have been killed by the Devil's agents. Being a child of God does NOT guarantee that trouble will not come our way. Why carry cell phones if all we need are angels?
There is nothing wrong with someone putting their trust in God to the degree that they will not accept it from anywhere else. There is also nothing wrong with those of us who trust God and also believe that we are partly responsible for our well being. I don't carry a gun......yet, but if thing continue to spiral downward, I may start packing heat.
Even the ministers carried guns and went to war during the civil war. I am not pro-war or pro-death....I am pro-freedom. Someone's freedom stops when they try to break into my home or harm my family. I believe that I not only have the freedom to protect my family, but the responsibility.
We are no longer living in the era when we can leave our doors unlocked and our keys in our cars and allow our children to run free and play like it was decades prior.
__________________
"Those who go after the "Sauls" among us often slay the Davids among us." Gene Edwards
Linear Mode
