Taking advantage of other people’s misfortune and fears certainly isn’t a new concept. But it is a concept that is spreading — all the way to the U.S. House.
As was expected, the recent disaster in Haiti had scam artists ready to take action. Within 24 hours of the massive quake, the first spam scam e-mails were reported. There also reports of phone calls from people claiming to be survivors of the disaster or family members of survivors asking for money.
Mental images that come to mind when I think of Haiti right now don’t include Haitians sitting around on their cell phones dialing random numbers to ask for help.
I would like to think if someone called me, they wouldn’t get too much further than “Hey, I am a survivor in Haiti” before either I hang up or try to collect information in an effort to report it to authorities.
But taking advantage isn’t just reserved for scam artists and criminals anymore.
Blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys is Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.). Three days after the foiled attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over the Christmas holiday, Congressman Hoekstra sent out a fundraising letter asking for donations to his gubernatorial campaign. Classy.
Here is an excerpt from his letter:
I have pledged that I will do “everything possible” to prevent these terrorists from coming to Michigan.
But I need your help.
If you agree that we need a Governor who will stand up the Obama/Pelosi efforts to weaken our security, please make a most generous contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even $250 to my campaign.
I don’t think so.
Hoekstra, the highest-ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, saw the terrorist threat as a way to cash in. We expect the criminals and scammers to jump in at the first signs of trouble, but now our elected government officials are right behind them.
No, Congressman Hoekstra didn’t legally do anything wrong, but to me, this is just one more example of how closely some of our elected officials resemble manipulative scam artists.
indieregister.wordpress.com 
If there is money involved hurting people doesn’t matter. Financial gain will always trump. Esp when there is big $ to be made. Scaring ppl is a good way to make money. If I was scared I would give money.
Rep. Hoekstra will get to scare you via corporate proxy soon, thanks to the Supreme Court. Much more efficient for him.
The NRA are good at this. When there is a shooting, they flood the mail with request for money to fight against gun restrictions. The HRA give the tale of the Brady brunch dancing in the blood of the dead. They are no more evil than the rest. As was stated in Atlas Shrugged “Fear is the only way to control people” One more, if there is a postage paid envelope, stuff everything in that envelope and let them pay up
NRA may not be perfect but there is a valid fear that gun rights, that is right I said RIGHTS are being infringed upon.
Where I live, I have a ten day waiting period for a background check. It does not take that long. You look me up in the computer and it spits it back out. I have a pristine record. I can only buy one hand gun every 25 – 30 days (once a month?). So, if I see a nice PAIR of pistols, I have to take two full months to purchase them. Even if it is for the intent of collecting them, which is what some of my guns are for. I have some antique pieces.
Ammo, that is getting harder and harder to buy. I am sure someone like you is glad to hear that. Some of this is part by law and part by laws impending. They would like to stamp each piece of ammo and register each piece to you like a gun. I would like to see how that works for those who reload their ammo. I am not sure if that is one more way to eliminate that activity.
You think that gun owners, LEGAL GUN OWNERS, have nothing to fear? You are sorely mistaken. There is a treaty that is being pushed about in the UN that would make most of my guns illegal! So groups like the NRA are good and I will gladly pay my membership fees to have them go to bat for me. They know the in’s and out’s of the game. As one person, I can not make that big of a difference, so I got to who can I will stand with them.
Scare tactics? I am not thinking that is what the NRA is really doing. They are pointing out valid issues that are being brought forth and discussed that would infringe on our rights as gun owners.
I belong to a local gun club and I take my family out there. We learn together the skills to use firearms safely and responsibly. We are not nuts. We enjoy target practice out there. And on occasion the local police department is out there and if you are lucky, they approach you and give you some good tips!
So honestly, I am not looking at this as fear, I look at it as protecting my rights and being prepared.
I think there are more important things to worry about than how often and and many guns you can buy.
Wow, that is what you got from my post? Amazing! So if I wanted to limit how often you could purchase bicycle, tent, cars, trailers, OH an ax, or something of that nature, you would think it was trivial? I am looking at it in a more simplistic manner. I don’t believe that someone should have control over how many and how often I should be able to purchase ANY PRODUCT! They do this with some cold remedies!
So your simplistic answer would make sense on the surface, however you need to look around at what else is being regulated. At some point it will be something that you like or feel you have the right to collect.
Think on those terms and it might at least make you change your tune, just for a moment.
A lot of the things you mentioned that are being regulated are being regulated bc people abused it in the first place. The only people worried about cold meds being regulated are the people that were using it to make meth. Guns are regulated bc as I am sure you know, many times the guns get into the wrong hands. I stand by ppl’s right to bare arms but I also stand by the rules that are in place in order to purchase them. I understand most people willing to go through the process to get a gun aren’t the ones that will use them on other people but you are talking about a dangerous weapon and that should require some kind of limitations. And yes, I would think it was trivial to place those same regulations on bicycles, tents, etc. I think it is a tad ridiculous to compare those items with guns.
Um, the gun laws are for those who obey the laws. When you are saying the guns are getting into the wrong hands, don’t you think that those are the ones who are breaking the laws. You know, the ones that don’t care about new laws that are made or the ones already in place. So rules and regulations only restrict those who are legally and honestly obtaining them for lawful and legal reasons. If you think that that is OK, you have some serious issues. I have had someone trying to break into my home one night. I called the cops. They told me the response time could be up to ten minutes. OK that is all great but the idiot that is trying to get into my house could get into my house quicker than that and didn’t care that I was in the house. Well, until I racked my shot gun. He took off and when the cops came, there was nothing for them to do but take a report.
Cops can not always be there for you. Not because they do not want to be but because they are so overloaded with other calls or across town. I can not have my own personal officer sitting outside my door for my protection.
I also have some of my guns for my antique collection. I don’t think it is anyone’s business how many I have because I am not harming anyone. IF I were to harm someone, THEN you can make an issue. Otherwise, keep your nose out of MY BUSINESS and I will stay out of YOURS!
The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Note the last part, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So these stupid laws are INFRINGING on my RIGHTS. If you want to bring in the argument of the felons, if they did something so bad that they should not have a gun in their possession maybe they should be either locked up for life or eliminated. It is really easy like that.
Really? I think one of the main points I made had to to with the fact that those abiding by the gun laws probably aren’t the ones hurting people. You did read what I said before you responded, right? It really only takes one gun to protect yourself in a home invasion. Considering it is just a home invasion and not someone that set out to hurt you specifically. Then maybe you would need more than one gun. I do understand that you are probably one of those people trying to obtain guns that would never hurt anyone,but think about the ppl that broke in to your home and how much more damage they could have done if they had free reign to obtain guns wherever/whenever they wanted.
First of all, you are assuming that all the antique guns are in working order. That is a fail on your part.
Second, you would want more than one kind of gun in your home, depending on where you are having to fire from target wise. If someone is entering my home unlawfully, I have to believe that the only reason is they do so is that they intend to cause harm to me and my family. I will do what it takes to defend my family.
Oh and if someone is invading my home, generally that does not mean that they are coming in my home for a little cheery visit and sit down. They know there is a chance that someone might be inside. I am sure they did not bring a home warming gift for us. They know in their mind that they are going to do what it takes to get the heck out of there. They will not want to be recognized. Do you think they are not going to take measures to ensure they will not be turned in? So in simple terms, when someone is breaking into my place, they have the intent to cause harm to my household on one level or another.
Now, I did read your post but your statement that you are for people being able to have gun rights does not match up with your other statement of the need to have all these other regulations. Either we are free to have the guns or we are not. And like I said, if there are people that commit crimes that make it where they should not longer be allowed to have guns then they should be locked up for life or put down.
I see things pretty black and white. You are seeing too many shades of gray.
The world is gray.
Okay, lets do this step-by-step.
First, I would never assume an antique gun would work, it is called an antique for a reason. Not only would I assume it wouldn’t work, anyone using a gun to protect their home should know better than to use an antique gun to do so.
Second, there are no rules on how many guns you can have in your house at one time. I really don’t even know why you brought this one up. I sure never said there are/should be limits on the number of guns in the house. Sure, most people that use guns for protection are going to have more than one in the house. No one is disputing that. What you took issue with wasn’t how many you could have in your house, it was how many you might be able to buy within a certain length of time. And Nina is completely right, there are very few things in the world that are black and white.
I do not normally feel the need to explain myself all that often but your consistent debating calls me to feeling the need to give you a further example of why more than one gun might want to be purchased in a certain amount of time without restriction. It is a matter of convince really.
I have a family that has four people of age that are able to responsibly use firearms. However, two of them are not of age to own them at this time. We are part of a local gun club; the same local gun club that our local police officers go to for their training. I like that because they often will stop and give tips. It also gives us familiarity with them and mutual respect.
Now, we are fairly recent to the gun club and we have taken to the target practice sport. We have bought handguns that we thought we would like but after shooting them, we found that we wanted something different. We wanted to still keep what we had, but wanted something more comfortable. I was going to have to wait another 20 days or so. Some say no big deal but we were coming up on a gaming day and I had to fore-go it. One of my other family members who is not old enough to own a handgun, we found they could not shoot the gun we had because it had too much kick. The new gun I had selected also was too much. Another 25 days waiting. Meanwhile this person is getting more and more nervous about getting out on the gun range. Not healthy really.
My issue is that in order to get the approximately 4-6 hand guns we wanted for the different competitions it took us several months to get. Now these are not just for competition, they are also for protection and they ARE STORED LEGALLY AND PROPERLY! When we have enough people in our home to use these, who is the public to say that I have to purchase these over a period of time? I should be allowed to purchase them when I want.
Honestly, this is the last posting I am going to post regarding this because I just do not see you understanding what I am pointing out. Simply put, no one should have the right to tell me how often I can purchase a gun. It really IS that simple.