Senator Duckworth

So I wrote Duckworth about not wanting HR-127 to pass. This load of bull is what I get back.

9 Likes

Looks like the same email I received in NV. I think they use the same form letter for each state.

7 Likes

It’s so simple. All they have to do is show us how creating another law will make criminals not commit a criminal act to obtain a gun in order to commit another crime. If they could show us that, I’m sure we’d all fall in line.

I swear, sometimes I think politicians are in league with the criminals. This publicly accessible registry is especially concerning. Not only will it point criminals to where they can find the best guns to steal, but it will give them some level of confirmation of who doesn’t own guns that they can use to defend their homes.

12 Likes

How many politicians have stock in Ammunition and Firearm manufacturing?
Push for gun control, prices and sales triple.

4 Likes

I hope y’all are finally starting to catch on to the fact that they don’t care what we think. They are right in their own minds. They will “re-educate” the rest of us defective minions. Now shut up, pay your taxes, and vote Democrat!

8 Likes

I know we have many Democrat gun owners here and my comment is not a shot at them. The DNC politicians seem to have a goal of getting effective firearms out of the hands of Americans. Aside from infringement on our rights it reduces our ability to defend ourselves should we need to. I wrote my politicritters too and basically got the same response. The DNC is incredible well organized and every member tows the party line. There’s really little point in contacting them at this point. Especially after China made a statement about American gun ownership being a problem, the DNC will fight little by little to make gun control happen. It’s just a matter of time.

9 Likes

I disagree. Yes the people in CA and NY are likely waisting their efforts writing and calling their elected kleptocrats. But if enough Dems in purple States wrote their representatives telling them- Hey I voted for you but I will not vote for you again if you continue to violate my constitutional right to defend myself- then that would have an impact. Especially if the Republican Party could find some less sleazy and more reasonable politicians for those gun owning Dems to switch their votes to. Simply regaining Republican control of the senate could put an end to most of these 2A violating laws. It would only take a shift of a handful of congress critters and one Senator to stop the bleeding. That should be easy to do given the economic and boarder crap show we will be facing the next two years and beyond that the Dems have no good answers for. Unfortunately though the Republican Party has equally poor answers for the most part. More importantly it is in the process of splitting itself apart with two warring, RINO, kleptocratic factions going after each other instead of the Dems.

2 Likes

Forgetting all the politics here…
Wouldn’t it have more sense to just reverse the situation?
Do not make a firearm database available to everyone, but make a criminals database available to private sellers.

15 Likes

Effectively that is what was proposed instead of the NICS background check system, where it would be “blind” with a database of only those “prohibited” persons, wherein the data on the subject being queried would not be saved anywhere. The gun control politicians did not like that, so we got NICS. We can thank the NRA for that, too.

4 Likes

What a bunch of politician double-speak that barely hides an agenda of suppression and control. Look at that third paragraph. I think this needs a detailed analysis/translation:

“As a combat veteran [virtue signaling]… I believe that honoring our Second Amendment rights requires establishing reasonable [weasel word] rules that enable [rules don’t enable, they limit, they disable… we’re already enabled] responsible owners [i.e. if you don’t follow these rules, you’re not responsible] , while keeping firearms away from dangerous individuals [anyone who doesn’t support our agenda].” Maintaining an accurate and robust record of gun sales that is available to law enforcement enables them to more easily identify suspects in crimes… [and maintaining a record of your phone calls, associates, and movements does the same, but it doesn’t make it right – doggone pesky 4th Amendment].

Notice that she doesn’t say anything about the additional cost burdens to gun owners, the per-year, per-gun, and per-magazine fees (taxes), and the cost for getting your psych profile done. That adds up to a whole lot more money.

How very “enabling” indeed.

5 Likes

Another thing that’s concerning about this is the psychological evaluation portion. How does one quantify that? Are they going to have a 30-min psychological evaluation to determine one’s state of mind? One issue is that the social science field is largely left-wing, so you have an inherent anti-gun bias built into it and it raises a concern that gun ownership will be regulated by psychologists. I do see the point of taking that step but unfortunately it adds another human element into the mix that I think will create more problems than it allows. I’ll take it another step further. My ex-wife’s oldest son was diagnosed by a couple different psychologists (in different states) as having “anti-social disorder.” Long story short he ended-up in a mental health facility for something he told the police. Within a week he BS’d the facility’s primary doctor that he understood he was wrong, he wouldn’t do it again, and they let him out. Guess what, he went right back to what he was doing. He was smart and very convincing. After that point he was in jail four times before he was 21. I don’t know what’s happened to him since, but I don’t know that a psychological evaluation will truly solve that problem either.

Her eyes are brown for a reason. The fact that you can see the whites of her eyes indicates that she is a quart low!

2 Likes

I called my RINO congressman (Kinzinger) and he voted for the bill. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

3 Likes

It is not intended to solve “that” problem. It is intended to solve the firearm ownership problem, as in who, but a crazy person, wants to own firearms? Therefore, no psych exam for a firearm owner will result in a “normal” evaluation. I am getting the image of the “AB” Normal scene in Young Frankenstein with Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman.

3 Likes

Right. It’s about the fact that the more hurdles that are placed in front of gun ownership, whether those are cost, inconvenience, or what have you, the fewer people will own guns, in fact, the fewer people will be able to afford guns. It’s still infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

At this moment, we’re looking at the potential for a base annual tax on gun ownership of what, $200 per? What if that tax were set at $5000, or $10,000? If they could carry that off (and they’d try if they thought they could get away with it), very few people would own guns. But those numbers are so high, they raise too much of an alarm. In principle, however, $200 is no different than $10,000, it’s a tax on your 2A rights. So instead, it’s a little here, a little there, and next year, a little more. Pretty soon, we’re all boiled frogs.

3 Likes

Yes, “gun control” has always been discriminatory, and as you may have noticed from my posts, I am strongly against “gun control” as I firmly believe in the founding principles of our country, including egalitarianism.

2 Likes

Thank you all. Informative.

Per news reports, the Bill is named after a 2018 shooting victim. It was very tragic and sad. Unrelated, but in my own family, three of my relatives were violently killed- years go. Reportedly, the aforementioned 2018 shooter was age 17, stole the guns from his father who legally owned them. The shooter also had a knife, and home-made bombs. He was a star player on the school’s football team, and was as an honor student. He was seen wearing a peace sign logo on his cap.

Something does not seem right from a privacy perspective in that “Bill”; I can see employers not hiring or not promoting otherwise employable citizens, and co-workers chastising and isolating employees for “owning”.

It also makes me think of the masses who are lower wage earners, good, hard-working, lawful citizens, raising a family; making firearms access and protecting one’s family a disparity, and unjust. I’ll be interested to know the origins of these ideas which could end up harming people; Whereas there are other more appropriate ways to reduce crime and violence.

From a usual non-voter, they just convinced me to vote in all elections. Recently, I newly joined three major 2A support organizations. As a humble tax-payer and citizen, this is concerting.

As I begin to learn about this, I understand it to be a proposal only (at this time); I wonder if Congress would eventually make revisions on it, so that it’s more acceptable, unless it does not pass. Thus far, I found one easy-read link:

Whereas on a state level, some pro 2A organizations can help keep you updated on local ‘Bills’; And even link you to sign petitions against or for Bills; Be aware, if you do sign a petition, you may be making your name public (if that’s ok with you). Check within your own states:
https://www.illinoiscarry.com

4 Likes

Returning us to the nobility and serfs The elite will have guns for their protection, or even better, armed security to wield guns for them. You will have nothing but your belly.

3 Likes

Did you write back and inform him that based on his apparent decision to approve this bill, you will be voting against him and rallying all 2nd Amendment supporters to also vote against them? Also, voice that they took an oath, both as a Representative of the people and upon entering the military to uphold and defend the Constitution!

4 Likes

HR-127 is the conglomeration of everything on the politicians,especially those of a certain party’s, wish list. As a veteran, I took a oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. This is the same oath all of these “representatives” took when they were elected, meaning that they would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S.” which includes the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights includes the Amendments that define those parts of the Constitution not addressed in the main body of this, the Law of the Land. The oath they all took requires that they “preserve, protect, etc” those Amendments-even those that they don’t like-if they took that oath seriously. It is quite obvious that many of them do not. They seek to deny law abiding gun owners the tools to defend themselves from grievious unlawful, criminal acts. It is distressing and hypocritical on their part, on view of the fact that the “People’s House” is now surrounded by 3+ miles of chain link fence topped with concertina wire and surrounded by National Guardsman while many major cities are burning. Evidently, level of protection depends on how important you believe yourself to be. Unfortunately, their constituents are not high on this list. As of this moment, they have not yet installed guard towers to keep the inmates from escaping, perhaps due to some overlooked design flaw.

To ban tools, or make them more expensive to acquire, will place the poor at the mercy of criminals and others who would do them harm , while doing nothing to get weapons out of the hands of criminals who generally acquire them by unlawful means. With gun sales at the level they are at this point, I don’t see the people meekly surrendering them, which may result in difficulty in enforcement, increases in violent crime, as well as other “unforeseen consequences”. Given the governments abject failures in depriving criminals in their acquisition of firearms, current law-abiding people are faced with a very difficult decision if this “Bill” passes. Having contacted my representatives, I got exactly what I expected- a form letter that failed to answer the question I asked. I was NOT surprised.

6 Likes