Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/16/2005 4:26:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 4:31:13 PM EDT by lippo]
Just curious if anyone knows the "real" reason behind the law making CMP ask this.

So you can shoot in a CMP shoot at Camp Perry, on the CMP Eligibility Affidavit and Liability Agreement...


A. To establish my eligibility under section 40723 of title 36 United States Code to participate in any activity sponsored or supported by the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), I hereby certify that:

2. I am not a member of any organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States Government.



What the ???

Why would they feel the need to ask this? I mean...come on...do you really think someone that is really planning on taking over the government is going to set foot on a military installation?

I like our government and I like the way it was set up, but I don't like the way it's run. I'd like to see the Constitution followed for once. And I might bitch about it from time to time, but come on...Overthrow it? Yeah, like that would really be possible in this day in age! I find this section of the agreement a bit over the top, even for our lawmakers.

In the Delcaration of Independence...


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.



So isn't this affidavit "UnConstitutional" in it's approach in asking such a question? I know this was the DoI, but it sets up the whole way we want to be governed...without tryanny and ability to fix our government when we need too.

I don't want to overthrow our government, nor would I like to see our Constitution stripped away, but doesn't it seem like the people in the "government" is more concerned about keeping power, than showing that they know and understand what the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights mean?

You want to talk about tin foil, looks like the lawmakers went out and bought the whole factory on that one! I mean come on, do they "really" believe that teaching people to shoot is "really" going to make them to overthrow the government?

New bumber sticker..."my gun makes me want to overthrow the government, like Rosie's spoon made her fat!"
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:31:58 PM EDT
And it isn't that they're afraid a gun will make the people want to overthrow the government.

They're afraid that it will give the people the means to do so.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:32:55 PM EDT
If you were going to over throw the goverment, make sure you don't tell the CMP.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:34:34 PM EDT
Because a Garand is capable of doing it?


Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:35:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:
Because a Garand is capable of doing it?





Do not underestimate the glory of the Garand.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:35:51 PM EDT
Even if you were in an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the government, you would have to be a complete idiot to admit it.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:36:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
And it isn't that they're afraid a gun will make the people want to overthrow the government.

They're afraid that it will give the people the means to do so.




Then I call tin foil on the lawmakers...



Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:38:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lu380:
Even if you were in an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the government, you would have to be a complete idiot to admit it.




And you KNOW there are some out there that would!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:50:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:51:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lu380:
Even if you were in an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the government, you would have to be a complete idiot to admit it.


No, but the Feds can prosecute you for lying, that is a good for a few more years in the slammer.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:53:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 4:58:42 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By shotar:
Because the CMP is a Congressionally chartered and mandated corporation that is wholly owned by the United States Goverment and they don't want to arm people against our own best interests.



I thought CMP was a private corporation now.

Edit...


The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law.



So does this mean that the CMP is a non-profit, that is not tied to the government now? Or does our government have a non-profit?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:55:19 PM EDT
Perhaps they don't wish to sell to members of Al-Queda and other such orgs.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:58:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:01:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By migradog:
Perhaps they don't wish to sell to members of Al-Queda and other such orgs.



Selling doesn't have anything to do with this. This is about instruction. On your 4473, they cover that you are a "responsible" citizen. But this is tin foil time for the lawmakers.

Why even ask it? More jail time...ok...but this is honestly stupid if you ask me. Just another stupid, control law. More jail time, more jail time...more things to bust you on.

Come on! This crap is out of hand!

Freakin idiot lawmakers!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:06:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Because the CMP is a Congressionally chartered and mandated corporation that is wholly owned by the United States Goverment and they don't want to arm people against our own best interests.



I thought CMP was a private corporation now.



Please take a gander at their board of directors and then get back to me about them being a private corporation. They are as private as the post office.




I guess you weren't kidding.

www.odcmp.com/Board.htm

Lots of Army advisors there!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:07:47 PM EDT
They do not want to train terrorists.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:10:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:13:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1IV:
They do not want to train terrorists.



You know what they called our Founding Fathers? Rebels...meaning terrorists.

I'm not saying that terrorism is a good thing, but you can't just use a word like terrorist or extremist (like Donald Rumsfeld did) and have it all encompassing like it is today.

So anyone that doesn't like tyranny, is a terrorist? You have to be more specific than that. See what I am saying?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:24:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just curious if anyone knows the "real" reason behind the law making CMP ask this.

So you can shoot in a CMP shoot at Camp Perry, on the CMP Eligibility Affidavit and Liability Agreement...


A. To establish my eligibility under section 40723 of title 36 United States Code to participate in any activity sponsored or supported by the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), I hereby certify that:

2. I am not a member of any organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States Government.



What the ???

Why would they feel the need to ask this? I mean...come on...do you really think someone that is really planning on taking over the government is going to set foot on a military installation?

I like our government and I like the way it was set up, but I don't like the way it's run. I'd like to see the Constitution followed for once. And I might bitch about it from time to time, but come on...Overthrow it? Yeah, like that would really be possible in this day in age! I find this section of the agreement a bit over the top, even for our lawmakers.

In the Delcaration of Independence...


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.



So isn't this affidavit "UnConstitutional" in it's approach in asking such a question? I know this was the DoI, but it sets up the whole way we want to be governed...without tryanny and ability to fix our government when we need too.

I don't want to overthrow our government, nor would I like to see our Constitution stripped away, but doesn't it seem like the people in the "government" is more concerned about keeping power, than showing that they know and understand what the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights mean?

You want to talk about tin foil, looks like the lawmakers went out and bought the whole factory on that one! I mean come on, do they "really" believe that teaching people to shoot is "really" going to make them to overthrow the government?

New bumber sticker..."my gun makes me want to overthrow the government, like Rosie's spoon made her fat!"




Does the Montana Militia count?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:43:19 PM EDT
Your making it way to complicated, thats just a CYA thing that their lawyers came up with. Thats just like the stupid warning labels they put on products like dont stick this product up your orifice and then try to sue us shit.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:48:38 PM EDT
Are they the same guys who advertise the $5.00 links in Shotgun News?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:59:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 6:00:06 PM EDT by PAEBR332]
The question was originally created to weed out anarchists and communists from being given guns by the federal government. It refers to organizations whose avowed purpose is to destroy the government. Such organization are illegal. They always have been. You may want to read up on the Burr conspiracy for a little insight on what the Founders thought about the valididty of advocating the overthrow of the legally constituted government.

The affidavit is not unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says the government must aid in its own destruction. The affidavit merely denies a person the PRIVILEGE of obtaining a weapon at low cost from the government. All CMP guns were government property, until turned over the the CMP. The CMP can only sell them under the restrictions set out in the law.

Maybe you would feel better if the government just ordered the CMP to destroy all the weapons? At least then your sense of constitutional purity would not be offended.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:00:43 PM EDT
Because those wishing to overthrow the government violently would read that disclaimer on their paperwork and go "Gosh, I guess that organization isn't for me!"
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:13:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:21:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 6:33:02 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
The question was originally created to weed out anarchists and communists from being given guns by the federal government. It refers to organizations whose avowed purpose is to destroy the government. Such organization are illegal. They always have been. You may want to read up on the Burr conspiracy for a little insight on what the Founders thought about the valididty of advocating the overthrow of the legally constituted government.

The affidavit is not unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says the government must aid in its own destruction. The affidavit merely denies a person the PRIVILEGE of obtaining a weapon at low cost from the government. All CMP guns were government property, until turned over the the CMP. The CMP can only sell them under the restrictions set out in the law.

Maybe you would feel better if the government just ordered the CMP to destroy all the weapons? At least then your sense of constitutional purity would not be offended.



This ISN'T about the sale of CMP guns. It just a liability release to shoot in a match.

Reading is fundimental!

And for your first comment, I know what you are talking about, but this affidavit ISN'T about product liability, NOR is it just reiterating an already set in stone law. I just find it stupid, useless and a waste...period. You don't honestly think this line 2, does any good...do you?

All it probably intended for, is to place "more" criminal charges against you, if you were a member of some group (like a local militia) and one of them started talking seriously about overthrowing the government. Then they'd slap a criminal charge against you, because you were a member of this group and you signed this thing...then they would bargin your charge down, for your testimony against someone that you might never have heard talk about overthrowing the government. All this really is, is legal system blackmail to be used against you if someone in the government needs or wants to show they are doing their job. End of story. All this is, is legal blackmail to be used in the future.

It's not about the sale of guns (this document wasn't even about the sale of a CMP gun), or about protecting their own butt. Get it now?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:30:41 PM EDT
As a non-citizen I can't obtain a rifle through CMP. I guess I'll have to overthrow the gov't with an AR-15.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:32:59 PM EDT
Before the CMP there was the DCM which was chartered and supported by the federal government. The bureaucrats introduced this alleigance to feel good, nothing more.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:43:27 PM EDT
Well, golly, I done been convinced.

Next time there's a match at Camp Perry, they'uns ought to jest let all the 88's, AQ's, Weathermen, Anarchists, etc. sign right on up, cuz the Founding Fathers wud a' wanna that.

Yup, yup, yup. That's it. Better yet, lets all us'n just start overthrowin'!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:46:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 6:46:45 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By ODA_564:
Well, golly, I done been convinced.

Next time there's a match at Camp Perry, they'uns ought to jest let all the 88's, AQ's, Weathermen, Anarchists, etc. sign right on up, cuz the Founding Fathers wud a' wanna that.

Yup, yup, yup. That's it. Better yet, lets all us'n just start overthrowin'!




Not very good at telling a joke, huh? Learn to do the punch line better. And you might get a laugh.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:35:13 PM EDT
hard to laugh when the tinfoil is limiting the blood flow to the rest of your head, eh?
Top Top