Comments on: Another Article on HR2640 http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:11:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sebastian http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178678 Sebastian Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:02:10 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178678 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. 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.

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178667 Ian Argent Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:23:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178667 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. 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.

]]> By: SayUncle » Bradys Fundraising Again http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178653 SayUncle » Bradys Fundraising Again Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:28 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178653 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Alcibiades http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178623 Alcibiades Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:25:42 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178623 Oh, no, it's an O'Reilly Moment. Oh, no, it’s an O’Reilly Moment.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178620 Sebastian Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:05:30 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178620 Clayton? Moderate? Progressive? What? Man, if Clayton is a progressive, I better start reading up on my Marx :) Clayton? Moderate? Progressive? What? Man, if Clayton is a progressive, I better start reading up on my Marx :)

]]> By: Joe http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178619 Joe Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:01:06 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178619 You have to remember that Cramer is a product of Kalifornia.... and a moderate <strike>liberal</strike> progressive by any other standard. You have to remember that Cramer is a product of Kalifornia….
and a moderate liberal progressive by any other standard.

]]> By: thirdpower http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178604 thirdpower Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:40:47 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178604 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. 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.

]]> By: straightarrow http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178602 straightarrow Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:31:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178602 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? 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?

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178591 Sebastian Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:48:44 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178591 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. 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.

]]> By: straightarrow http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/comment-page-1/#comment-178586 straightarrow Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:26:26 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/14/another_article_on_hr2640/#comment-178586 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. 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.

]]>