I was just cruising another forum a few minutes ago when I ran into this particular bill that I honestly had no clue existed. It seems as if I'd heard something about it but that's about the extent of it. What initially brought this to my attention is that this guy went to buy a firearm today(military combat veteran) only to find out that he was denied during the background check due to this act which was signed into law in 2008. You mean to tell me that the US government is OK with sending our troops out into combat and they trust they will be safe with their weapons but refuse to have them armed here?
Click Here --- HR 2640, Or the 'Veterans Disarmament Act', Signed by the President, January8, 2008 and became Public Law. Troublesome because HR 2640 will deny thousands of American combat veteransthe right to possess, own and carry a firearm. This bill strips Americasfinest of their rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. There is a reason why Ron Paul has more financial support from the military and veterans than any other Republican Presidential candidate. Ron Paul, a lone voice, strongly opposed this bill.
Click Here --- The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law. Those who want to claim that there is no "Veterans Disarmament Act" ignore, first of all, that up to 140,000 veterans have ALREADY BEEN DISARMED by using twisted interpretations of the federal code. That figure was released on August 1 by Congress' own research team -- the Congressional Research Service
This is interesting to me because many people always say that the government's greatest enemy to corruption is all of the returning military vets or even the highly trained vets we have here now.......well, if they can't purchase firearms, then what? To me, the government is saying "we are afraid of these vets ever coming back against us for the horrible crimes we committed against them so we are going to pull the teeth of the biting dog that may return".
It's really shocking because you always hear this "support the troops" nonsense however what support is this? It seems they have no problem with that saying of "protecting the country against enemies foreign...." but they have great problems with that " and domestic" part attached to the end. Remember too, it wasn't Obama that signed this into effect but the other corperate crony George W Bush. Now we see Obama working to add to this with these other UN Gun Control Treaty:
Click Here --- In October unbeknownst to most of us, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama administration would reverse the Bush administration’s opposition to the UN’s proposed International Small Arms Treaty. This will clear the way for the treaty to reach a vote by the U.N. General Assembly. Seven countries, led by the British, are trying to restart U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. The goal is to “regulate the global arms trade” and “prevent the illegal transfer of guns.”
Look from a statistical standpoint and see what good gun control does for an area.....the thing is that people who commit crimes don't buy their guns from the local gun store so all you're little "bans" and "treaty making" only prevents good people from owning guns. When you have a society that no longer has the ability to defend themselves, you end up with criminals running everything. Look at Mexico right now....they are a completely disarmed society.....who are the ones dying down there? Certainly not the cartels but the innocent people who don't have the ability to protect themselves.
Another shocking trend is that societies are typically disarmed before being exterminated. It happened in China, in Nazi Germany, in Russia and countless other places. This is the nature of the beast and how it operates. A good movie that highlights the horrors of societies with imposed gun control is "Innocents Betrayed" and forever will change a person:
Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:07 pm