[Beer for my Horses]

Here's a place to find out contact information on your elected representatives. . . . CLICK HERE (http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir)

[ctdonath]

My reps are Hillary & Schumer. No point.

[Beer for my Horses]

who's your House rep?

You can still send the Prez an email; the more the merrier.

[AZTOY]

Beer for my Horses

PLEASE LOOK at this site we are working on it:D
http://www.awbansunset.com

[Frohickey]

No.

I haven't yet, but I should, even though my House Representative is the gun-grabber-b!tch Zoe Lofgren. The same Zoe Lofgren who had the temerity to get a photo of herself and the high school students living in the district she represents (not 'her district') that got accepted to WestPoint/Annapolis/etc.

And my Senators are not promising either... Feinswine and Bouncing-Check BoxerLoser. :cuss: :fire: :mad:

[Beer for my Horses]

I'm sorry Frohickey, I truly am. I escaped the PRK over a decade ago and have never looked back.

[TheOtherOne]

What's a good, simple way to refer to the ban and stress that you want it to sunset?

"Please do not renew Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994"

Or does that not make any sense?


When writing to president@whitehouse.gov does it even get read? I doubt they have the resources to actually answer or read all the e-mail I'm sure they get.

[ojibweindian]

I have done so several times. Especially last October and November. I haven't done so lately, but will start up again soon.

[alan]

Not only my own rep. and senators, but Speaker of The Hpouse, Senate Majority Leadewr plus some others too.

As to Hillary and Chuckie, or similar others, please note the following. They get a count of phone calls, letters and e-mails on issues like this, something that MIGHT give some pause for thought, especially if the response is heavy, and is maintained.

As for those who "haven't yet, but plan to", what are you waiting for? It doesn't take long at all.

[Jackanape]

My senators are Boxer, and Feinstien. My Rep. is Pelosi. I don't think I'll waste a tree by writing any of them. I will, however, be writing other Senators...

[alan]

Jackanape wrote:

My senators are Boxer, and Feinstien. My Rep. is Pelosi. I don't think I'll waste a tree by writing any of them. I will, however, be writing other Senators...

Try the telephone, don't even need postage stamps.

TheOtherOne wrote:

What's a good, simple way to refer to the ban and stress that you want it to sunset?

"Please do not renew Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994"

Or does that not make any sense?


When writing to president@whitehouse.gov does it even get read? I doubt they have the resources to actually answer or read all the e-mail I'm sure they get.

You might want to keep it real simple. Oppose renewal/reauthorization or extension of Assault Weapons Ban, and restrictions on magazine capacity. As fpr president@whitehouse.gov, no the president doesn't read e-mails, at least I certainly doubt it, however I suspect that he gets numerical tallys, particularly on "hot" issues.

[2dogs]

Beer for my Horses

Done. Thanks for your help.:)

[Shooter 2.5]

For all of you people who say that there is no point in contacting your rep because they're already anti-gun, do this:

Send them a letter asking if they support the Second Amendment and you want them to sunset the Assault Weapons Bill. When you get their refusal, send it to the editorial page in your newspaper and a newspaper in a pro-gun state.

Embarrass the he!! out of them.

[Shooter 2.5]

Only six people besides me made a lousy phone call or letter to support the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons Bill.
Is this a gun board or democraticunderground.com??:fire:

[alan]

shooter2.5 wrote:

Only six people besides me made a lousy phone call or letter to support the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons Bill.
Is this a gun board or democraticunderground.com??

This really is a "gunboard", however didn't you ever hear about how "gun owners are their own, worst enemies"? It might also be that more people than appears, have and will continue to do whatever they can, in the way of contacting their "elected things". They simply might not make a whole lot of noise about it. This last, I truly hope, is more than just a possibility.

In any case, I will, and you should continue to do what you think should be done. If none join you, it's their loss, not yours. We might not woin, I hope we do, but we will, at least, have tried.

What was it that was said of those who fought, as opposed to those who went home. Something about "This band of merry men ...", I cannot remember the rest of it, though I've seen it quoted fairly often.

[10-Ring]

Last year, when there was a bullet tax propsal, I got a few email address and now, when I feel moved, they get emailled. (Like in this case :) )

[Skunkabilly]

Who's in charge of Orange County and will I be wasting trees writing my congresscritter? How's this:

"You know how you never hear people say 'it's a free country' anymore? I wonder why that is?

Love,

Skunkabilly, the world's pretty much only Chinese banjo picking religious nut with a bunch of guns"

[TheOtherOne]

You might want to keep it real simple. Oppose renewal/reauthorization or extension of Assault Weapons Ban, and restrictions on magazine capacity. As fpr president@whitehouse.gov, no the president doesn't read e-mails, at least I certainly doubt it, however I suspect that he gets numerical tallys, particularly on "hot" issues.
Thanks for the info. Yeah, I seriously doubt that the president ever sees any of that e-mail. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they farmed out the e-mail "customer service" to India or someplace.

Regardless, I sent my reps and the president e-mail. I plan to write actual letters once the date gets closer.

[alan]

TheOtherOne:

Look out for Senator Hatch, he tends to talk from both sides of his mouth, and at the same time.

Personally, I believe that contact with congress critters must be a year round thing. The late John Saylor, for 20 some years Republican Congressman from Cambria County (Johnstown) Pa., a coal mining and steel, and a pro-gunner was critical of gun owners, as "Last minute charlies", who slept all year long, and maybe woke at the last minute, when they should have been active the year round.

[Shooter 2.5]

Alan,
Thanks for the support.

I think the passages you're thinking about is the St. Crispin's Day speech from Henry V.
We few, we happy few. We band of Brothers.

[alan]

Shooter2.5:

I believe you are coprrect on the historical reference, St. Crispins Day. Thank you.

As for what you were kind enough to describe as "my support", your'e welcome.

[Beer for my Horses]

Can someone post a link to the 1994 AW Ban. It's been so long I'd like to read all of the provisions again so I can pick out the ones I hate the most. Lobbying our representatives may turn out to be lobbying to sunset certain provisions instead of the entire Law. In other words, they're likely to pass another law called the 2004 "Assault Weapons" Ban (I mean who needs "Assault" Weapons; I prefer my non-assaultive weapons) but they might be persuaded to drop some of the more onerous provisions. The one that really bugs me is the Hi-Cap mag ban. It's cost me a pretty penny to buy pre-ban Hi-Caps; it does absolutely zero to stop criminal shootings (as with most of the Ban's provisions); and it just bugs me in an overall way. A man should be able to load the firearm of his choice with as many rounds as he can fit because you never know when the Mongols might attack from the North.

Anyway, feel free to share your most hated provision of the AW Ban. . .

Keep spreading the word, and thanks for your efforts,
Darrin

[alan]

Beer For My Horses:

Re the samething under another flag, different name, there is NOTHING in the Assault Weapons ban, so called, that is either legitimate or worthwhile. Ditto for limits on magazine or "ammunition feeding device" capacity.The entire concept, no matter how described, must be fought in/on any and all battle grounds, at the very least, till there is a legitimate definition used to describe the genre, as with the definition used by The U.S. Army, which follows. Assault Weapon, A selective fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration, chambered for intermediate power cartridge.,

If the anti's ever become honest enough to admit that this definition is the correct and proper one, the only one, then they must also admit that the NFA of 1934 has long covered the entire field. They aren't likely do do that, so we must fight and defeat the bastards, whenever and wherever they appear.

There is no margin for compromise, not if we really want to retain our rights, and if one doesn't care about this, then there is no need for compromise, which merely serves to slow the arrival of their, the antis, desired goals. One might just as well bend over, and grab their ankles, as in BOHICA, which means Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

I cannot speak for anyone else, however I'm not particularly interested in or willing to, "assume the position". End of rant.

[Beer for my Horses]

alan,
I agree with you that the entire AW Ban is evil. However, in the world of politics one must always accept the possibility of compromise, or you will get nothing. I'd much rather that they sunset three or four provisions and renew a so called AW Ban than renewing the entire Ban. That's just politics. You're not supposed to like it. It stinks. But it's the only way things get done in D.C. That's why many RKBA absolutists give the NRA a hard time; the NRA has to live and operate in the world of politics. In that world they do a great job, but they also end up supporting some things that make me mad. If they took an absolutist/take it or leave it stance, they'd have exactly zero influence over legislation of firearms. As it is, they are THE most powerful lobby on firearms issues in town.

[alan]

As I understand, it's not a question of a couple or so "provisions", it is the entire thing, and that thing is the "assault weapons Ban" so called, which didn't effect 19 weapons, as was advertized, in the end, it involved something like 200, give or take a few.

In my view, the EXISTING LAW must die. Alternatives, such as might be proposed, are battles that will be fought when and if. In my opinion, if the Assault Weapons and related restrictions, magazing capacity limits remain, or are reinstated, extended or made permanent, gun owners will have taken one very large kick in the pants, one which might well prove fatal.

I've been wrong before, at least once, but that's the way it appears to me, the politics of Washington, D.C. notwithstanding.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I will write my Rep and my Senators but the reason I haven't done so already is because I know their past voting record.

My rep opposed the original ban, supported the House attempt to repeal it in 1996 and is on record as opposing the renewal of the ban.

My Senator opposed the 1994 bill. I'll write her to ask she oppose any attempt to renew it as well.

My other Senator was just recently elected but ran on a platform of opposing the renewal of the 1994 ban.

So all in all, I'll write them once around summer to say "Great work, keep it up" and I'll write them again in 2004 to let them know I am still watching; but no reason to irritate the people who support you by sending them variations of the same letter repeatedly.

By the way, please phone or snail mail them. Email counts for next to nothing when they tally constituent views. It is too easy to spam.

[GregoryTech]

My reps are Hillary & Schumer. No point.

Have you considered that perhaps your letter carries more weight than you think. I don't know what happens in the back rooms in Washington, but it wouldn't surprise me if these senators, under pressure from their constituancy, lightened up on their politicing of OTHERS to vote in favor of a ban even though they might "have" to vote for it themselves. This way they get to vote how they are "supposed to" but their party doesn't take the hit that renewal would cause (as evidenced by all the letters they get from YOU ALL).