Another Article on HR2640
Clayton Cramer has an article running on Shotgun News about HR2640, and what it really means. Go have a read.
10 Responses to “Another Article on HR2640”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I had a read. I don’t believe what Cramer thinks he wrote is what I read. Nor do I believe he read the same 2640 I did.
I can see hundreds of invitations for abuse in the bill. It surprises me he cannot. The one thing we know about government, anybody’s, any kind, is that they all want more power and it is inevitable that they will abuse ever power given them. With all the invitations to abuse in this bill, it will be abused sooner rather than later.
I do not believe an appeals process that won’t be honored or funded is worth the price of the ultimate abuses to be allowed under this bill. If that appeals process is that valuable, it should be introduced in its own bill, and funding for the appeals process already in place federally should be funded immediately. For Christ’s sake, they already showed how they honor their commitments to get a deal. They give you what asked for, but first they starve it to death.
This is a trojan horse.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Sure, they could abuse the appeal system, but right now there is no system at all. It would seem to be a faulty system where you can get your rights restored is preferable to there being no system at all.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Not to me. Why accept other avenues for abuse? As I stated they already have a system of appeals. They don’t fund it. So just exactly what do you think we are getting that we don’t have now that doesn’t rely on their good offices? In the meantime we should accept a trojan horse of a bill that provides far more prospects to abuse us than it does anything else? I sincerely hope it does not become law.
If there was any intention on their part to provide a mechanism to restore rights to citizens all they have to do is fund the system already in place. Why did they not do that rather than try to trade us something we already have, but that they won’t honor and it is already the law?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Right now what we’re getting are individuals like Cho slipping through the cracks and the “gun lobby” (everyone who supports gun rights) is being blamed for it. Are there potential abuses? Yes. Are there actual problems w/ the system as it is set up now? Yes.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
You have to remember that Cramer is a product of Kalifornia….
and a moderate
liberalprogressive by any other standard.August 14th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Clayton? Moderate? Progressive? What? Man, if Clayton is a progressive, I better start reading up on my Marx 🙂
August 15th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Oh, no, it’s an O’Reilly Moment.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am
[…] want supporters looking it up and finding all the information out there that says HR2640 isn’t much of a gun control bill. They might also find that several other anti-gun groups are opposing the measure because […]
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Actually, other than his strongly expressed feelings on sexual orientation; Clayton is surprisingly moderate. It’s what makes him worth reading despite some of his rants.
It’s just that pesky redefining of the center that makes him look so rightwing (again, excluding the sexual orientation stuff).
Specifically on firearms, he has stated that he doesn’t believe a firearms registry is unconstituional. Stupid, unenforceable, expensive, and pointless, but not unconstitutional.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
He has a libertarian streak in him for sure. I agree with him on registration, BTW. Congress could pass registration using its militia powders as justification, even under strict scrutiny on the second amendment.