Potential GOP Chairman Favors AWB!-- Activism Opportunity


PDA






JWarren
November 15, 2008, 04:34 PM
Posted with deference to "ZipityDoodah" on AR15.com. He said it best in his opening post, so I am quoting him:



ZipityDoodah (on AR15.com) wrote:

Michael Steele, one of those vying for the chairmanship of the GOP favors a ban on assault weapons. When will this insanity in the GOP stop?

His answer to the below question:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if youíre going hunting? Thatís overkill. But I donít think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But whatís the point of passing gun laws if weíre not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, thatís where you need to start. Weíve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, itís about how we enforce the law.



I wanted to get this message over to THR. PLEASE contact the GOP via the link that I have in this post and let them KNOW how we feel about thier direction.

Guys, If you are interested in bashing the GOP, take it somewhere else. Not productive. Not worth it. This is about making sure that the GOP doesn't answer its identity crisis in a way counter to our interests.

If you don't like the GOP, great. This isn't your thread, then. If you are dissatified, keep bashing them-- but do it elsewhere. Let me know what practical results you get from all that energy expended.




Source link on AR15.com:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=137&t=787067

Source ZipityDoodah got the info:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Michael_Steele_Gun_Control.htm


Link to where YOU can tell the GOP what you think:

http://www.gop.com/Connect/ContactUs.htm



-- John

If you enjoyed reading about "Potential GOP Chairman Favors AWB!-- Activism Opportunity" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Archie
November 16, 2008, 10:14 PM
So the Republicans who represent me should be following my lead, not telling me what's good for me.

I'll send messages.

What a dipstick. This is what cost the Democrats the house and senate in 2000 and the Republicans can't remember?

JWarren
November 17, 2008, 07:39 AM
Thanks Archie.

I contacted them as well.


-- John

Prince Yamato
November 17, 2008, 12:56 PM
Ugh, are you kidding me? I actually liked this guy until now. What the hell is wrong with my party? $10 says this guy doesn't even know what an assault weapon is.

tinygnat219
November 17, 2008, 01:10 PM
Michael Steele? What's he done for MD? Ugggh. They are picking him because he's Black...

Time to light up the phone boards!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 17, 2008, 02:10 PM
Email sent to them - what a choad!

JImbothefiveth
November 17, 2008, 02:17 PM
If I wanted stuff like this, I wouldn't be republican in the first place!

jad0110
November 17, 2008, 04:47 PM
I did my part, here is an excerpt from what I sent ... feel free to plagerize:


I would like to remind the GOP that it is called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. I would also like to point out that the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting. It is also not even about self-defense. The 2nd amendment was put in the Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers because they knew It would be THE ultimate check and balance against out-of-control federal power. Weakening it with so-called "common sense" gun control out of the spirit of compromise does NOTHING to promote freedom. In fact, it is not common sense at all, as the black market will step in to supply criminals with weapons anyway.

These so-called "assault weapons" aren't even real assault weapons, by definition. They do NOT have a selective fire switch to enable fully automatic fire, and the cartridges they are chambered for are typically less powerful than common deer rounds like 30-30 Winchester. True assault weapons are already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes Amendment to the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Juna
November 17, 2008, 08:44 PM
We have over 20,000 gun laws in this country, and all they do is make criminals.

According to the NRA, there are over 40,000.

Steele just gained my vehement and active opposition. If ever we've needed a rise of the Libertarian party, now is that time.

taliv
November 17, 2008, 09:29 PM
email sent

JWarren
November 18, 2008, 09:44 PM
IBTL


Please, let's not lock this.

Let's get damn busy.

I am a registered Republican. And I am PROOF that I do not approve of some of the ideas and policies of my party.


This thread is a good time to BASH the Republicans and criticize THIS choice. But let's stick to this issue and let our voices be known that we disapprove.


-- John

Archie
November 18, 2008, 10:20 PM
The reason for this sort of talk is an attempt to demonstrate 'reasonableness'. Anyone who espouses this sort of view is trying to look 'centrist' and 'approachable' and 'reasonable'. See, he's not a closed mind sort of fellow, and besides, who 'needs' those sort of things.

The problem with this line of reasoning is it ignores the real problems. Crime is not driven by instrumentalities, crime is driven by evil intent. Laws directed at things rather than actions are always doomed to fail.

Perhaps he's not such a bad guy. But he needs to get his act together and find out who is going to provide him support.

Stephen A. Camp
November 19, 2008, 01:28 AM
Hello. I sent the following email to the current Republican Chairman:

"Sir,

I was very dismayed at Mr. Michael Steel’s support for a so-called “assault weapons” ban, even though neither the term nor the concept are correct. FYI, by definition an “assault weapon” must be capable of both full and semiautomatic fire and be in a mid-power caliber, i.e.: one that is more than a handgun and less than a rifle. When have “bans” worked? In the early part of the last century, prohibition “worked”, didn’t it? The answer is that it “worked” to help the mafia grow by leaps and bounds and if any class of firearms are banned, one can rest pretty well assured that there are groups willing to smuggle them in and more folks that might be expected ready to buy.

This comment particularly bothers me:

“Q: Your views on gun control?
A: My views are pretty much in line with the governor's. I grew up under some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. You can have all the gun control laws in the country, but if you don't enforce them, people are going to find a way to protect themselves. We need to recognize that bad people are doing bad things with these weapons. It's not the law-abiding citizens, it's not the person who uses it as a hobby.”

(Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Michael_Steele_Gun_Control.htm (“On the Issues”))

Is Mr. Steel saying that we need laws enforced that keep people from protecting themselves? Sure sounds like it to me? What do you think?

I voted a straight Republican ticket this time. While not enamored with Mr. McCain at all, he was better than Obama but when I see this crap being espoused by higher ups in what’s traditionally been my party, I get physically ill. I also get angry.

I’ve donated to both the RNC and individual candidates on a regular basis. That’s stopped. I will not donate one red cent to anyone willing to support “reasonable gun control legislation”. “Reasonable gun control” serves only as a precursor to yet more “reasonable gun control legislation.” I find it particularly repugnant that we, the “unwashed masses”, are considered so stupid that we don’t see this. When was the last time you heard any of the gun control bunch say that they now had their “reasonable” legislation and were satisfied? When the Brady Bill became the Brady Law, despite its being touted as the “be all/end all” and “all we want” gun control legislation, Sarah Brady changed her tune and after it was passed, called it “A good start”. Those supporting such legislation are actually working up to a complete ban…and we both know it.

Do not believe that the Republicans can keep its membership with this sort of disrespect to the Second Amendment. The idea that “they” (the pro-gun contingent) will stay because they don’t have anywhere else to go is flat out wrong.

I am hoping that the Republican Party will come to its senses and embrace pro-freedom, conservatism once again.

I am looking for political party to support but can only support those supporting the Second Amendment. Right now, the Republican party isn’t it.

I am a single-issue voter as are millions more of us that Mr. Steel seems to be overlooking. Preservation of the Second Amendment is that issue.


Sincerely,
Stephen A. Camp"

I then sent a copy of Steel's remarks, this email and contact information to an informal group of folks I update on Second Amendment issues. I suspect that they'll be kicking in comments to the Republicans as well.

Best.

Coronach
November 19, 2008, 01:52 AM
Tell me, how is this better than the Democrats, again?We may be about to find out. That's easy to say when the Rs are in charge and we aren't getting everything we want. Remember what happened the last times the Ds held everything?

Back on course,

To which address should the communication be addressed, do you think? Current chairman? I wonder how much influence he has over picking his replacement?

Mike

alsaqr
November 19, 2008, 07:36 AM
Will e-mail this guy ASAP.

smn
November 19, 2008, 08:39 AM
This is from Shamalama on GeorgiaPacking.org (http://georgiapacking.org) here (http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21205&highlight=):
According to On The Issues:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law.
Source: Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006

Mr. Steele, I have, up to now, been really excited about a true Conservative resurgence in the GOP after our embarrassing loss to Obama. I was looking forward to you leading this rebirth. Until I read the above interview.

I have never hunted. No birds, no trout, no deer, no ducks, no elk, no salmon.

I am an absolutely softy wimp when it comes to animals. Provided they're not out to eat me, I'd much rather stand off and watch some of God's most miraculous creatures go peaceably about their lives.

The Second Amendment makes absolutely no mention, or inference, of hunting. The reason for the Second Amendment was to protect the right of self-defense and freedom from government tyranny. The only living creature the Founders were afraid of were other humans.

Therefore a much more correct question from you should have been, "What do you need an assault weapon for, if youíre protecting your daughter from getting gang raped?" It is only then that you begin to see how silly your argument has become. I am armed, and I carry everyday. So does both my daughter and my wife. We all carry not in case we see a 10-point deer jump in front of us, but rather to repel those that intend to do us harm.

Which is more deadly, a semi-automatic AK-47 that has 20 rounds or a Glock pistol that has 20 rounds? Which is more deadly, a rifle with a pistol grip, or a pistol with a rifle grip? Why does a rifle become more dangerous when you are allowed to adjust the length of the stock?

We are not discussing bazookas, machine guns, or flamethrowers. We are talking about semi-automatic rifles, most commonly chambered in deer-hunting loads, that simply have had external cosmetic features added to make it easier to use, lighter to carry, and quicker to bring into use.

Or are you of the opinion that the Second Amendment only protects those with flintlocks that only use them to hunt deer?

I'll donate $50 to your PAC if you can find where the word "hunting" is mentioned in the Bill Of Rights. With all due respect, sir, the mere mention that the Second Amendment has anything to do at all with hunting is an invention of the ill-informed.

You say "Society should draw lines." I say that the Framers already did.

You ask, "What do you need an assault weapon for?" I ask, "Who are you to demand any explanation from a law-abiding citizen?"

You say, "... use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that." I say, "... to protect my loved ones, and myself, from an imminent lethal threat."

You ask, "But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them?" I reply that I've been asking the same questions from our political leaders for years. If we simply enforced the existing laws we would have absolutely no need for any others.

I will watch your words carefully over the next days to see if you clarify your position on "assault weapons", a term that doesn't even exist outside of the media. Instead of supporting a Republican party that acts like the Democrats, maybe the time is finally here for supporting a third party.

dcal
November 19, 2008, 10:33 AM
To which address should the communication be addressed, do you think? Current chairman? I wonder how much influence he has over picking his replacement?
I was wondering the same thing myself. The administration has human resources under its domain, perhaps there. With a cc to the current Cman? That's how I'm going to send it.

JKimball
November 19, 2008, 01:42 PM
To which address should the communication be addressed, do you think?

I would like to send a letter to Steele himself. Has anybody found some good contact info?

This site lists his website, telephone, and address:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Contact_Senate.asp?name=Michael_Steele

But the phone has been disconnected and neither of the web addresses work. (Incidentally, it is the same site that published his position on guns.)

I did leave a little message here:
http://www.draftmichaelsteele.com/contact

wcwhitey
November 19, 2008, 05:11 PM
I found this link on the RNC Website. http://www.republicanforareason.com/intro.aspx

They are looking for feedback from current Republicans on the current direction of the GOP. Seems like a good opportunity to sound off.

chapaev
November 19, 2008, 05:49 PM
Here's what I wrote:

"Hi, I am writing in the regard to the statement made by Michael Steele
regarding the so-called "assault weapons" that appears at:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Michael_Steele_Gun_Control.htm

"Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for,
if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means
you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting
or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun
laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun
control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the
books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the
law."

When I read things like this it becomes ever-so clear to me why the
Democrats swept the recent election. What happened to the Republican
support for ideas of liberty, individualism and smaller government?
What part of the Second Amendment mentiones hunting? The Second
Amendment is there to insure the right (not a priviledge) of an
individual or a group of individuals to defend their
life/livelyhood/pursuit of happiness. One simply has to think back to
the recent events of Hurricane Katrina to see the potential usefulness
of an "assault weapon". If one was to protect their home against a
multitude of attackers (think - criminal gang) I don't think that one
would get too far with a bolt action deer rifle capable of holding 3
or less rounds. In this time of soul-searching for the GOP it is ill
advised to favor policies that are so dearly embraced by the left. The
quoted statement above is unconstitutional, un-Republican and
un-American.

Sincerely,
..."

Spot77
November 21, 2008, 09:09 AM
For those on "Facebook" you can leave comments on Mr. Steele's Facebook page. :D


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Steele/11483890414?ref=ts

hso
November 21, 2008, 09:15 AM
Post Disappear?

We need keep our focus on making sure Mr. Steele and the RNC understand that such statements are unacceptable to us and not get off on other issues and complaints. Thread drift tends to derail the discussion on how to get things accomplished. If the topic in the drift is worthwhile it probably warrants it's own thread somewhere on THR, but it probably isn't Activism.

ServiceSoon
November 21, 2008, 12:47 PM
Which phone number should be called?

David904
November 21, 2008, 02:59 PM
I wrote this to the GOP Chairman:

Dear sir,

It as come to my attention that there is a movement within the leadership of the GOP to forward and support a new Assault Weapons Ban. I composed this email in response to remarks made in support of gun control by GOPAC Chairman Mr. Steele of MD - who is vying for Chairmanship of the GOP. As a registered Republican, I am neither fish nor fowl. I am not particularly religious, am pro choice, support stem cell research, and am a 2nd amendment absolutist. The second amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting or sportsman activities. It is there to empower the citizenry and provide a constant reminder to the government that it works for the people and represents the interests of the people - not vise versa. I find it deeply disturbing that many of our legislators see fit to try to impose their sensibilities on the rest of us and pervert the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution to support their ends.

There are legislators who feel that there is no need for "assault weapons" or any other firearms they deem scary or overly dangerous. They find them disturbing and feel that they are a menace because a very few broken people abuse their rights and use their firearms for evil ends. I'm a student nurse. I've seen up close and personally the damage that can be done with firearms. However saddened I may be by the untimely tragedies that occur from time to time through the irresponsible or criminal use of a gun, I am in no way inclined to surrender or infringe upon our civil rights. I would like to remind our legislators of what the true purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is. It does two things:

1. It protects the rights of the unpopular Americans.
2. It protects the unpopular rights of Americans.

I vote for the party that is most likely to preserve our civil rights. Betray this trust, and my family and friends will turn our political support elsewhere. I am not alone in this sentiment. Do not support another Assault Weapons Ban. This is "the land of the free;" so act to preserve our freedoms. Ensure that we have them to pass on to our children.

Respectfully,

David904

JWarren
November 21, 2008, 04:33 PM
Hiya.

I'm the original poster on this thing.

I just wanted to thank you all for looking at this, taking it seriously, and taking action.

THIS is what it is all about.


As for what number to use, I have no idea. Do like me-- hit them all. Somewhere, there is a guy in accounting that is wondering why he has to listen to me about Steele on his voicemail.

He's in good company, however. I just called every number that they put up there. Yes. My wife thought I was nuts while listening to me repeat myself about 14 times on the phone.



At any rate, thanks!


-- John

If you enjoyed reading about "Potential GOP Chairman Favors AWB!-- Activism Opportunity" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!