<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for H.R. 2640 - Changes to the Brady NICS Check.</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:39:14 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>H.R. 2640 - Changes to the Brady NICS Check.</title>
            <description>You can read the text of the &quot;To Improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System&quot; bill by clicking the highlighted text.. I was asked for my opinion on the bill - and this is what I see on first scan, which of course is not definitive. That said- it looks okay to me on a quick scan. I should note, I know that the NRA has been working with the bill sponsors on the wording of the bill, and this represents the negotiated bill - what I haven&apos;t seen yet is any official NRA comment. Heh. I may be...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:52:25 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-06-13</title>
            <description>
                While there&apos;s no doubt about that, Jim - this really is just closing a true loophole.

The question is, down the road, how does it get implemented by the states and feds, and how do the anti&apos;s find ways to expand definitions to widen the net?
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html#comment-61121</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html#comment-61121</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:17:31 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from jim b on 2007-06-13</title>
            <description>
                How bout this as a first .. no Moore talk from me.

Strange collection of sponsors. Of course I tend to be jaded when it comes to Congress. Few can object to this thing, however it&apos;s the creeping incrementalism thing that concerns me.

I refuse to shake hands with anyone in congress and not count my fingers after.

I believe this is the first ... most even in nature ... and non-objectionable bill in what will be a continuing flood of stuff to make &quot;Gun Control&quot; not quite the &quot;third rail&quot; it has been for Liberals.

Isn&apos;t &quot;Shumer&quot; Hebrew for &quot;Trust me&quot;?
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html#comment-61120</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/hr_2640_changes.html#comment-61120</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:34:33 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


