"Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ezkl2230

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
143
These Democrats from largely rural states with strong gun cultures view Obama's proposals warily and have not committed to supporting them. The lawmakers' concerns could stand in the way of strong legislation before a single Republican gets a chance to vote "no."

"There's a core group of Democratic senators, most but not all from the West, who represent states with a higher-than-average rate of gun ownership but an equally strong desire to feel their kids are safe," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "They're having hard but good conversations with people back home to identify the middle-ground solutions that respect the Second Amendment but make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on guns."

All eyes are on these dozen or so Democrats, some of whom face re-election in 2014. That includes Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Folks - if you live in one of the states represented by these legislators, you need to turn up the heat. If you haven't contacted them before, you need to do it BEFORE Democrats begin to build up the momentum they need to try to pass this stuff.

The time is NOW!!!

Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures - Yahoo! News
 
They'll oppose it. Not because it is what they want or believe in, but because they are politicians. They know that this won't be a popular piece of legislation.

Keep the heat on these guys.
 
I'm from Arkansas, and I've written to Pryor on at least 3 occasions. My emails have been very clear in my support of gun rights, and his responses have been very noncommittal.
 
What we need to do is support them in serving their constituents instead of Washington or Chicago.

Remind them of where they come from and that their constituents are as easily lied to about firearms and that those same constituents will not understand if they serve Senator Feinstein's 30 year out of date thinking.
 
I want so much to believe none of this legislation will pass. I want to believe some Democrats will stand in its way. And I want to believe that the American public is awake enough, and intelligent enough that they won't swallow all the political nonsense that is swirling around them. But I am rapidly losing hope.
 
Obama trying to frame firearms debate in terms of "tradition of hunting"

"And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gun-control-advocates-listen-more-060727333--politics.html

He's trying to steer the debate away from self-defense or protection from government tyranny and frame it strictly in terms of hunting.

We can't fall for that.

His efforts to re-direct the debate tells us that the arguments we are making ARE HAVING AN EFFECT. This is a classic debate strategy. If you can't win on the merits of your argument, try to direct attention in another direction. As I have said in other posts, the side that frames the debate wins the debate. We have to make sure he isn't allowed to do that by keeping the pressure on our legislators, particularly the Democrats who are leaning towards bucking the party.

It's time to redouble our efforts!

BTW, this article says Obama shoots skeet all the time at Camp David, and frequently invites guests to the camp to shoot skeet.

Final thought. I have no use for the man who said this, but the idea is appropriate. When it comes to the gun control debate, we have to shake their confidence in passing the legislation. That is beginning to happen. That means we have to "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on' em" (Confederate Lt. General Nathan B. Forrest). Keep up the pressure until they finally stop trying.
 
Last edited:
Just contacted all my reps and senators via email. Encourage all to do the same. Liberty lost is like a 9/16" wrench at the bottom of lake Superior (Lake Baikal would be more like it, really): pretty tough to get back.
 
gunlaws

I spent many hours trying to fight our harsh gun laws in Canada..You guys have to keep the pressure on your reps..let them know that all gun owners have long memories at election time..
 
FEINSTEIN IS WORRIED!!! Says NRA is only mouthpiece for manufacturers!

OK Folks! Feinstein is truly scared!

"This has always been an uphill fight. This has never been easy. This is the hardest of the hard," Feinstein said.

BUT...

"I think I can get it passed because the American people are very much for it," Feinstein said of the measure that follows a similar measure she championed into law 1994 but expired a decade later.

http://news.yahoo.com/leading-Democrat-gun-control-faces-uphill-climb-160828132--politics.html

Tell her otherwise! Don't just contact your own legislators, contact Feinstein directly! Stuff her email box, jam her phone lines, run her fax machine out of paper.

She is worried - VERY worried! To paraphrase Lt. Gen. NB Forrest, "Get 'er skeered and keep the skeer on' er." She's skeered! Keep the pressure on her until she quits trying to ram this down our throats! Let's show her that this isn't just the NRA talking, this isn't just firearms and ammo manufacturers talking, this is MILLIONS of very angry, grassroots, legal firearms owners and carriers talking - the same firearms owners that were able to convince congressmen to let the FIRST AWB die!
 
Mark Pryor may be on his way out anyways due to his part in obamacare. If he wants any chance of reelection at all, he's going to need to have alot more of a firm stance against gun control rather than just being noncommittal or a fence sitter.
 
he wants any chance of reelection at all, he's going to need to have alot more of a firm stance against gun control

Then tell him that you'll spend time and money to help him if he blocks every attempt at further restricting firearms owners. Remind him of his vulnerability. Promise that you'll work at least as hard to see him defeated if he does support any sort of ban.
 
Then tell him that you'll spend time and money to help him if he blocks every attempt at further restricting firearms owners. Remind him of his vulnerability. Promise that you'll work at least as hard to see him defeated if he does support any sort of ban.

I intend to do just that. We'll, sort of... I was planning to do my part in voting him out anyways, but that can be our little secret. :D
 
Never lie (and never say your going to).

Tell him that you'll work for his defeat with all the spare time and money you can scrape together in both the primary and general election if he doesn't remember where he comes from and who his constituents are and supports any ban of firearms, magazines, or ammunition and American's access to them.
 
FEINSTEIN IS WORRIED!!! Says NRA is only mouthpiece for manufacturers!
OK Folks! Feinstein is truly scared!

Tell her otherwise! Don't just contact your own legislators, contact Feinstein directly! Stuff her email box, jam her phone lines, run her fax machine out of paper.

Yep, anti's have been harping that angle, too.

Sure, gun manufacturers support the NRA. But they only do so because WE, the gun owners and future gun purchasers, are the market keeping them in business.

Manufacturers cannot successfully lobby if a market doesn't exist. Manufacturers, gun owners, and future gun owners are working TOGETHER, hand-in-hand, to protect EACH of our interests.


But your strategy is the correct one. The only thing I would add to that is to CONTINUALLY contact all these people...not just once or twice. Let them know that not only are you concerned, but that you are NOT forgetting...and are NOT going to let them forget that you are concerned.
 
Never lie (and never say your going to).

Tell him that you'll work for his defeat with all the spare time and money you can scrape together in both the primary and general election if he doesn't remember where he comes from and who his constituents are and supports any ban of firearms, magazines, or ammunition and American's access to them.

I'm going to lie. I'm going to tell him I oppose all of the proposed gun legislation and that I expect him to do his job and represent me by opposing it as well. Short, sweet, and to the point.
 
Mark Begich of Alaska

I don't think Begich is personally fond of gun control, but I know that he is aware he won't be further employed by the citizens of Alaska if he votes for anything gun control related. He barely made it into office in his first senate race, and that was with the DOJ conveniently indicting his opponent on felony charges just before the election.

His efforts to re-direct the debate tells us that the arguments we are making ARE HAVING AN EFFECT. This is a classic debate strategy. If you can't win on the merits of your argument, try to direct attention in another direction.

+1. I think Obama et al thought that Sandy Hook was their chance to replay the Long Island Railroad shooting ---> '94 AWB scenario, but they forgot what the 94 AWB cost them and they opted to just be ignorant of demographic shifts, or really weren't aware how popular scary black rifles have become.

The analogy I posted in another thread still seems to be holding true -- Obama saw an opening, charged his troops into it, and is just now realizing he's in a blind draw with high ground on three sides. That doesn't mean they might not be able to fight their way out of that tight spot, but they definitely exhibited some irrational and poor tactical thinking to get there.

My big concern is the risk that they might get some bill on the floor for a vote, with it sure to go down in flames, and then we'll see some sort of copycat Sandy Hook or similar huge tragedy right before voting. That scenario could cost us hugely.
 
Let's stay focused on the topic of bracing up those Congresspersons up for reelection in 2014 that have shown any support for RKBA and reminding those that aren't dedicated Antis that the costs to the supporters of any new law restricting magazines, firearms, or ammunition will be higher than the '96, '98, and 2000 elections.

Remind them that Clinton and Feinstein gave too much credit to the NRA at the time of the backlash to AWB '94 for the losses in Congress and that the same mistakes are being made now.
Even more now than then, the number of voters who own these firearms and magazines that use this ammunition out number NRA members and far far outnumber hunters.
Even more now than then we're better connected and organized through internet forums and social media. Even more now than then the facts and actual data on crime showing that murder rates have fallen ever since AWB '94 expired are readily available and easily shared demonstrating the fact that AWB '13 supporters are lying to the American voters.

There are far more of us, we have access to better information, we're far better organized on our own, and we'll be far more active in removing any politician from office that wants to restrict firearms, magazines or ammunition we might want to own.
 
I just faxed her the following letter:


Senator,

I am not from your state, but I have contacted my own legislators numerous time over the years regarding proposed gun control measures. Since you are the one spearheading this legislation, I now contact you directly.

For the record, I am one of the millions of firearms owners who does his own research and who speaks for himself. I am a Constitutional Constructionist. The Preamble of the Bill of Rights, which records that the Bill of Rights was passed by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by a supermajority of the legislatures of the States, states its purpose as follows:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution (bolding added).

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

While federalist justices may choose to ignore the clear meaning of this document, its intent is clear: the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights supersede the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution - placing the Second Amendment beyond the power of the federal government to infringe upon the right enumerated therein. This is the explicit, stated purpose of the Bill of Rights.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports make two things crystal clear: 1) Murder and other violent crimes have diminished to historic lows even as firearms ownership and carry increases to historic highs. 2) The states with the most murders and other violent crimes are those that have implemented the strictest gun control measures.

Additional research performed by criminologists tells us that, despite the recent spike in mass shootings, such events have been on the decline since the '90's:

"And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject
since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2JI3eCAdw
Senator, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GUN CONTROL MEASURES YOU HAVE PROPOSED. I will do everything in my power to bring together the grassroots support necessary to keep your proposals from being realized.

Respectfully submitted,
 
Yesterday I got to listen to my grandparents yelling at me that the NRA is a terror group and that the Brady Campaign is just trying to help limit the damage.

When I tried to explain the facts to them and that there was a mass shooting during the last AWB and why an AWB would be ineffective now, I basically got them putting their hands over their ears yelling "lalalalala" because they don't care about the facts.

My own family has been corrupted by news networks trying to demonize the NRA and paint them as bad guys who don't want to protect children. This whole thing stinks and the NRA, who is fighting for the people of this country, are being attacked for it.

News agencies like CNN are brainwashing a large portion of the population and it makes me sick.
 
Everyone in AK needs to be writing Begich in particular. In fact both he and the moderate Murkowski are liable to be key figures in this debate. As AK residents our letters will get more attention. If possible and you're in the DC area look into getting a face-to-face chat with them. We're from such a small state that this is indeed possible.
 
Feinstein angry with today's Judiciary Committee hearings, will convene her own...

Given the waning interest in her bill among the speakers at the Wednesday hearing, Sen. Feinstein wants to assemble her own panel and hold her own hearing on ‘military-style assault’ weapons.

“I’m concerned and registered my concern with Sen. Leahy yesterday, that the witnesses are skewed to the anti-gun [control], anti-assault weapons [ban] position,” Feinstein told POLITICO. “He agreed that I would be able to do my own hearing on the assault weapons legislation which I will proceed to do.”

Despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Feinstein believes her AWB has a chance of passing through the Senate.

“I believe we have the votes on the Democratic side to pass out the bill,” Feinstein said.

Senate Judiciary Hears Testimony on Gun Control; Feinstein Upset, Wants Own Hearing (VIDEO) - Guns.com

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE! IT'S HAVING AN EFFECT!!
 
Cosmoline - I have contacted both Begich and Murkowski and Don Young. I am not too worried about Young and Begich has also said point blank that he will not support more in control. Murkowski's response to my first round of emails was not as solid as Begich's. I will post them both here tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top