Posts Tagged ‘Gun Owners of America’

Anti-gun Health Draft Includes Annual Fines Up To $3800

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

 

Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, September 10, 2009

By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill. 

Please send in those postcards — as it’s very important for legislative offices to see mounds of gun owners’ mail being dumped on their desks!

Now that Congress is back in session — and the President has given his televised push on health care — it is time for us to redouble our efforts.

To review the bidding:

Every major health care bill being considered in Congress would require many (if not most) Americans to be covered by insurance policies written by the Obama administration — so-called ObamaCare.

Among other things, ObamaCare will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.

So, as a gun owner who doesn’t want this data to be trolled by the BATFE from a federal database, you might say:

* “I’m not going to buy an ObamaCare policy.”

or

* “I’m going to buy the type of insurance that I want to buy.”

Well, anti-gun Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) has a question for you:  “How would you like to pay a $3,800 a year fine?”

That’s right.  In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy.

So, what’s going to be required under ObamaCare?  And how much is it going to cost?

Baucus isn’t going to tell you that until after the bill is passed.  We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.

Take into consideration that the Baucus draft — with its $3,800 per year fines and its ObamaCare -related gun databases — is the so-called “conservative” bill.  This is the one that they’re trying to get Republicans to sign onto because it’s so “conservative.”  The final Pelosi-written conference report will be much, much worse.

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what?  He lied.

ACTION: 

1. Write your Senators. Ask them to oppose the anti-gun Baucus draft, with its requirement that Americans purchase an Obama-approved insurance policy or pay a $3,800 annual fine.  This legislative draft has not yet been publicly released; however, several news agencies have reported on its key features — and these reviews are widely available on the Internet. 

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

2. Distribute this email far and wide.  There are people that you know who should be involved in the fight against socialized health care who are just sitting on the sidelines.  Please forward this email to them and get them involved in the fight!

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please oppose the open-ended anti-gun mandates contained in the Baucus health draft. Among other things, Baucus-mandated policies, which would have to be approved by the Obama administration, will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.

So, what if a gun owner insists on buying the type of insurance he wants to buy? Sen. Baucus would fine him up to $3,800 a year.

That’s right.  In a recently released draft, Baucus would fine gun owners up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders them to buy. So, what’s going to be required by this Baucus-mandated policy? And how much is it going to cost?

Baucus isn’t going to tell us that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign.

In short, please oppose the anti-gun, anti-freedom Baucus “compromise” and please let me know exactly where you stand on this issue.

Sincerely,


Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

Deception on the Senate floor

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor Friday, January 30, 2009

As we reported last week, legislation to require a federal license to possess any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, or any handgun, has been introduced in Congress. Bills to re-impose the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban, or to impose a much broader ban, have been introduced in Congress since 2003, and will likely be introduced in the current Congress soon.

Already, the deliberate deceptions we heard from anti-gunners previously are resurfacing. Anti-gun Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich.), said Thursday on the floor of the Senate that “assault weapons” are “capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute” and that they are “once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods.”

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive? Many fully-automatic firearms can fire 10 rounds in a second, which theoretically would work out to 600 rounds per minute, but they cannot be reloaded fast enough to achieve anything near that rate in reality. But we are not talking about fully-automatic firearms—we’re talking about semi-automatics, and the difference between them need not be explained here.

“Pervading our streets?” Anti-gun lawmakers swore up and down that once the “assault weapon” ban expired, the murder rate would go through the roof. Well, the ban expired in 2004 and since then, the murder rate has gone down to a 43-year low. The anti-gunners think they can revive this bogus issue, and maybe they can; they will no doubt try.

But Congress required a study of the 1994 ban, and the study concluded, “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a small fraction of gun murders.” Violent crime was going down before the ban, and it has continued to go down after the ban.

If the issue is looked at objectively, it should be over, done with, water under the bridge. The ban should never have been imposed in the first place, let alone be imposed again or ever expanded. And certainly guns should not be banned on the basis of nonsense like Sen. Levin’s speech, and other deliberate deception perpetuated by gun ban groups.

Deliberate deception such as: A folding stock makes a rifle concealable, as if it were a pocket knife. But anyone who knows anything about gun laws knows that federal law requires a rifle to be 26 inches long, regardless of its stock, and a 26-inch-long rifle is not concealable.

A pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired “from the hip.” But the 90 million pistols owned by the American people all have pistol grips, and they aren’t designed to be fired “from the hip.” Besides that, the fact that a rifle has a shoulder stock and sights mounted on the barrel proves that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense. If they really believe that, let them propose to prohibit the military and police from having pistol magazines that hold 12, 15, and 17 rounds. These guns are “high-powered.” Next time an anti-gunner calls a gun “high-powered,” ask him to name one gun that is low-powered. They even call .22 rimfires “high-powered,” when they want to brand a .22 as a so-called “assault weapon.”

NRA members who own AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons,” you are not alone. There are nearly two million AR-15s in our country, the same number of M1s, the same number of M1 Carbines, and many more Mini-14s, semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, and all the other guns the anti-gunner want to call “assault weapon.” Countless millions of American own handguns that use magazines of over 10 rounds.

Our challenge is to coalesce these Americans into a political force that will make anti-gun lawmakers’ heads swim. When they repeat gun ban groups’ deliberate deceptions, we must tell the truth; not some of the time, but all of the time!

But we cannot wait for them to act, and then only respond in defense. We must be out front. When we carry our message, we must do so confident in the knowledge that we are doing so in a manner that respects our fellow citizens, and their right to disagree–a way of doing business that is alien to our opponents–and that our arguments are based in logic and fact, not deceit.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. If you are pro-gun please join a group that supports our rights & the Constitution. The NRA – National Rifle Association GOA Gun Owners of America JPFO JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS jpfo.org ISRA Illinois State Rifle Association or any other state or local group

Courtesy of Care2 Groups: Just say ~NO~  to gun control Mailing List