H.R. 2640

[Lady Di]

It was just a matter of time before Chuck Schumer and his gang of thugs proposed legislation to "protect" us from another would be Virginia Tech assassin. H.R. 2640, sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy and Chuck Schumer, would ban anyone from owning a gun if they had been diagnosed with ADHD as a child. This would include the thousands of boys who may have been misdiagnosed with ADHD when the only thing "wrong" with them was that they had been typical boys displaying natural boyhood-type energy. Anyone who has taken the drug Ritalin would be banned from owning a gun if Schumer has anything to say about it. In addition, any service member who has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder would be banned from owning a gun if Schumer gets his way.

So, once again, we're forced to take time out of our busy days to call our legislators to ask them to respect the 2nd amendment and to protect us from men like Chuck Schumer. :x

Check here for further details: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57847

And P.S. Stay out of the psychiatrist's office if you value the 2nd amendment: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311

[VegasGeorge]

I have already emailed my congressmen about this. There is no end to the mendacious attempts of these anti-gun politicians to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights. We must continue to fight back.

[Raccoon]

And what do they do about all the servicemen and women that have ADHD? And what do they do about all the Police Officers and Security Guards and Judges and bounty hunters that have ADHD?

Sometimes these people just dont think.

[Bill of Rights]

No, no, Raccoon! Don'tcha know that when you put on a soldier's or police officer's uniform, any and all mental illness is cured?

I have a different idea, though I credit Schumer and McCarthy with the basis of it:

Let's prohibit anyone with any history of mental illness and/or retardation from being a politician or, for that matter, from voting.

That's a reasonable restriction, isn't it?

Are we all in agreement that this is a good idea? Are we similarly in agreement that Sigmund Freud was, in his lifetime and since, respected as one of, if not THE most respected authority on such things?

Splendid.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”
-Sigmund Freud

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

I do like your idea, St. Michael. Do you mind if I borrow it? I'd like to contact my representative and promote the idea to him. :lol:

[Stubob]

Great job getting that out there. This is just amazing. I am going to have it posted in the news section in the main area as well to help get the word out.

VegasG - way to go being ahead and e-mailing - will do the same tonight.

Let's prohibit anyone with any history of mental illness and/or retardation from being a politician or, for that matter, from voting.


This only seems fair and we would have to get an entire new Senate and House.

[Bill of Rights]

Feel free, Lady Di, but don't expect any response. You have the same Senators I do.

Stubob, we'd still have a few, but it'd be d*mned few. Congressman Paul would be one.

Personally, I like the idea of "at large" representation, which suggestion I've repeated elsewhere to the same blank looks that George (I think) posted about receiving when suggesting violent felons, on conviction, should be taken out back and shot.

Just FYI, you'll have to write to your Senators and to Bush, because this is the bill for which the House "suspended the rules" and voice-voted. This is typically a procedure followed for non-controversial bills that no one has argument on, e.g. a bill or resolution to recognize someone's 100th birthday or other "feel good" stuff.

This clearly is not the kind of bill for which the rules should have been suspended such that we have no record of who voted for and who against.

Personally, I'm holding every bloody one of them responsible for this abomination. Those of you who have Senators who actually care about their constituents and the Constitution, please do write. I have Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, a RINO and an ass who publicly supports Hitlery Clinton. Both would happily disarm us to further their elitist, socialist plan to make America into (apologies to Standing Wolf) a slightly more prosperous version of East Germany.

And if I sound angry, it's because I am. Lots of good people died to secure our rights, and these anti-American SOBs want more people to die in the removing of them from ordinary people; the transformation of "Justice" into "Just us".

Blessings,
M

[Genghis77]

I believe the dividing line for mental defect and incompetence to own firearms comes with actual illegal acts or forced committment. One example might be a person suffers from depression, bi polar or a similar disorder. If they are hospitalized by their own will, they are showing control and responsibility over the situation. The Virginia Tech shooter, I understand was temporarily under ordered committment. But it was something short of a day. Even then, I think a person should be reviewed and if competent rights restored. I have seen lots of people cross the threshold of sanity because of divorce or loss of employment. Many need to distance themselves from guns for a time. But the crisis will pass. If a person has a mental problem, taking the MMPI (Minnesota Mental Profile Inventory) test will sort things out and show if competent or not. Among others, this test is given everyone entering the military for the past 50 years.

In a similar move, I think a felon's rights should be restored if found to lead a legal life after serving sentence and an appropriate time.

In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, I understand he had US residency, but not citizenship. Now that needs improvement. I am uncertain where exactly I stand. Denying guns to non citizens or requiring strict testing and profiling.

[Lady Di]

I don't see a "dividing line" written into the 2nd amendment for the RKBA and for good reason. I think it's a dangerous slippery slope to go down when you begin making exceptions as to who should and should not own guns. We'll become our own worst enemies if we allow others to do so. There might be some who would want to add motorcylce riders to the list of exceptions since some mistakenly believe they fit into a "not so fit" category. Some say Thomas Jefferson and other founders suffered from depression. I know police officers who suffer from occasional depression, but I would not want to disarm them. What about mothers who suffer from post-partem depression? Should they have their guns taken away? I'd go so far as to say that most Americans have suffered from depression from time to time, and it's unrealistic to think we can police society to such a degree that we can reasonably and rationally figure out who is depressed on any given day.