"Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures"
- Thread starter ezkl2230
- Start date
- Status
As promised - responses from Alaska's Senators:
Mark Begich (D)
Dear Mr. XXXX :
Thank you for contacting me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
I was shocked by this horrifying event, and my heart goes out to the victims, families and the Sandy Hook community as they face this tragedy. This was a terrible, senseless crime against some of the most vulnerable.
In the aftermath of this awful crime, we must be vigilant about addressing future threats to public safety. There is no simple solution, but I do not believe more restrictive gun laws will prevent criminals from committing acts of violence. I have always been and continue to be a strong defender of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
I believe this tragedy, and the shooting earlier this year in Aurora, Colorado, illustrate a pressing need to improve mental health services in this country. The Sandy Hook shooter was in early adulthood, a time when mental illnesses frequently develop. I have introduced a bill, S. 3325, the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act of 2012 , to improve mental health services on college campuses. This legislation would establish a program to provide training to faculty members, dormitory resident advisors, and other members of the college community to recognize the signs of mental illness and safely address crisis situations.
We must do more to keep our communities and families safe, and legislation like this is an important step in the right direction. I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to promote mental health services and prevent violence.
Thank you again for contacting me about this tragedy. Please continue to be in touch with your thoughts and concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark Begich
U.S. Senator
Lisa Murkowski (R)
Dear XXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.
I cannot express how deeply saddened I am by the events of that day , and I join all Alaskans as we continue to pray and mourn for the victims, families, and all those who have lost their loved ones to this tragedy. Alaskans and Americans remain united in thought, prayer and support for the entire Sandy Hook community.
This tragedy has prompted many Alaskans to contact me about gun control measures. Americans must remain vigilant in the protection of our constitutional rights, as I have done and will continue to do. As we continue to struggle to grasp the needless deaths of 20 young children, all viewpoints must be included when considering how to appropriately respond to this tragedy . Some would argue that there is an urgency in having Congress act unilaterally to restrict the possession of firearms and ammunition, but that argument is all too frequently made by people unsympathetic or unfamiliar with the recreational shooter or hunter's lifestyle – and creates division between urban and rural America when we need to come together most.
Now is not the time to demonize those who possess and use firearms lawfully. It is time to build a national consensus, with firearms owners, about how to prevent incidents lik e those we have recently seen. And we must look at the issue from all perspectives – our broken mental health system; violence on television, in video games, and in movies; the safety of public places; and the safe storage of firearms in the home. Demanding the vast majority of us who responsibly use firearms to give up our individual freedoms in the interest of community safety simply may not make our communities safer. But as part of a national consensus, firearms owners may well be willing to live with greater regulation if they play an active role in the formulation of that regulation.
If Congress considers issues related to the Newtown shootings, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.
United States Senator
Lisa Murkowski (signed)
Mark Begich (D)
Dear Mr. XXXX :
Thank you for contacting me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
I was shocked by this horrifying event, and my heart goes out to the victims, families and the Sandy Hook community as they face this tragedy. This was a terrible, senseless crime against some of the most vulnerable.
In the aftermath of this awful crime, we must be vigilant about addressing future threats to public safety. There is no simple solution, but I do not believe more restrictive gun laws will prevent criminals from committing acts of violence. I have always been and continue to be a strong defender of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
I believe this tragedy, and the shooting earlier this year in Aurora, Colorado, illustrate a pressing need to improve mental health services in this country. The Sandy Hook shooter was in early adulthood, a time when mental illnesses frequently develop. I have introduced a bill, S. 3325, the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act of 2012 , to improve mental health services on college campuses. This legislation would establish a program to provide training to faculty members, dormitory resident advisors, and other members of the college community to recognize the signs of mental illness and safely address crisis situations.
We must do more to keep our communities and families safe, and legislation like this is an important step in the right direction. I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to promote mental health services and prevent violence.
Thank you again for contacting me about this tragedy. Please continue to be in touch with your thoughts and concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark Begich
U.S. Senator
Lisa Murkowski (R)
Dear XXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.
I cannot express how deeply saddened I am by the events of that day , and I join all Alaskans as we continue to pray and mourn for the victims, families, and all those who have lost their loved ones to this tragedy. Alaskans and Americans remain united in thought, prayer and support for the entire Sandy Hook community.
This tragedy has prompted many Alaskans to contact me about gun control measures. Americans must remain vigilant in the protection of our constitutional rights, as I have done and will continue to do. As we continue to struggle to grasp the needless deaths of 20 young children, all viewpoints must be included when considering how to appropriately respond to this tragedy . Some would argue that there is an urgency in having Congress act unilaterally to restrict the possession of firearms and ammunition, but that argument is all too frequently made by people unsympathetic or unfamiliar with the recreational shooter or hunter's lifestyle – and creates division between urban and rural America when we need to come together most.
Now is not the time to demonize those who possess and use firearms lawfully. It is time to build a national consensus, with firearms owners, about how to prevent incidents lik e those we have recently seen. And we must look at the issue from all perspectives – our broken mental health system; violence on television, in video games, and in movies; the safety of public places; and the safe storage of firearms in the home. Demanding the vast majority of us who responsibly use firearms to give up our individual freedoms in the interest of community safety simply may not make our communities safer. But as part of a national consensus, firearms owners may well be willing to live with greater regulation if they play an active role in the formulation of that regulation.
If Congress considers issues related to the Newtown shootings, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.
United States Senator
Lisa Murkowski (signed)
Last edited:
Christina Green, Rachel Scott, and what their fathers said about more gun control...
Giffords and others continue to refer to Christina Green, the nine year old girl who died in the Arizona attack, as a rallying call for gun control, but they conveniently forget the words of her own father, spoken in the aftermath of their daughter's death:
They also forget the words of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, killed during the Columbine shooting:
Both men sound remarkably like Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
Giffords and others continue to refer to Christina Green, the nine year old girl who died in the Arizona attack, as a rallying call for gun control, but they conveniently forget the words of her own father, spoken in the aftermath of their daughter's death:
They also forget the words of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, killed during the Columbine shooting:
Both men sound remarkably like Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
Deer_Freak
Member.
I called Senator Kay Hagan's office with questions about Senator Feinstein's bill. Senator Hagan's representative told me to call Senator Feinstein's office since they should know the answers to my questions. Those people from CA must be dumb as a rock because they couldn't answer any of my questions. Now if I was a Senator I would be prepared to answer common questions the people would have about any piece of legislation I introduced to the senate. Those people from CA didn't even know the police were not responsible for my personal safety. They tried to argue me down. I read the supreme court rulings to them. Then they just said that is what the senator wants, without any explanation.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
I know the majority of folks here are pretty conservative, but there are some who aren't and keep quiet.
And I know there are a few who can't stomach the thought of coughing up a dime to the NRA, although I think that's a mistake.
Here are a couple of liberal links for organizations, specifically Democratic Party, that small though they may be, are worthy of consideration if you fit the profile.
http://www.facebook.com/dgocofmo
http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org
Obviously the first link isn't much good other than moral support if you aren't in MO. And the Blue Steel Democrats have chapters in only a handful of states. Feel free to organize one in yours if appropriate.
(No, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney. This is a gun link.)
Just like a monoculture corn crop can lead to famine from a single blight while genetic diversity offers stability, diversity in defense of RKBA helps us all.
And I know there are a few who can't stomach the thought of coughing up a dime to the NRA, although I think that's a mistake.
Here are a couple of liberal links for organizations, specifically Democratic Party, that small though they may be, are worthy of consideration if you fit the profile.
http://www.facebook.com/dgocofmo
http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org
Obviously the first link isn't much good other than moral support if you aren't in MO. And the Blue Steel Democrats have chapters in only a handful of states. Feel free to organize one in yours if appropriate.
(No, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney. This is a gun link.)
Just like a monoculture corn crop can lead to famine from a single blight while genetic diversity offers stability, diversity in defense of RKBA helps us all.
There is also a Liberal Gun Club.
I didn't know such a place existed either until last week. Still, I have had some decent conversations over there and as long as you stay on the topic of guns, even those on the right probably will have no problems.
And we should stay on the topic of guns.
You can argue with liberals about whatever you want later... right now work with those who value the RKBA, regardless of political viewpoints, and protect the Second Amendment.
In fact, liberals who own guns and are registered as Democrats can apply a type of pressure on those in the democratic party that conservatives can't. No matter how much a Republican rants about gun control, he is unlikely to have voted for a Democrat anyhow. But those within the party can choose a more pro-gun candidate in primary elections and replace an anti-gun candidate. They can also pressure Democrats that they voted for to respect the RKBA... because again, it is the votes of Democrats (mostly) that put Democrats in office.
Even those who are not interested in joining may want to surf the LGC discussion forums to get an idea of how liberal gun owners feel about this latest round of attacks on the Second Amendment.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/
I didn't know such a place existed either until last week. Still, I have had some decent conversations over there and as long as you stay on the topic of guns, even those on the right probably will have no problems.
And we should stay on the topic of guns.
You can argue with liberals about whatever you want later... right now work with those who value the RKBA, regardless of political viewpoints, and protect the Second Amendment.
In fact, liberals who own guns and are registered as Democrats can apply a type of pressure on those in the democratic party that conservatives can't. No matter how much a Republican rants about gun control, he is unlikely to have voted for a Democrat anyhow. But those within the party can choose a more pro-gun candidate in primary elections and replace an anti-gun candidate. They can also pressure Democrats that they voted for to respect the RKBA... because again, it is the votes of Democrats (mostly) that put Democrats in office.
Even those who are not interested in joining may want to surf the LGC discussion forums to get an idea of how liberal gun owners feel about this latest round of attacks on the Second Amendment.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/
Last edited:
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
This is the link for their discussion forums. Poke around over there and there's actually an associated "Liberal Gun Club" one can join with dues and everything.
No, there's no plastic membership card, and no hat, and no American Rifleman. But like goon says, there's an alternative point of view that's reaches the same conclusion via a different mindset. Don't knock it. And while the NRA may be the gorilla in the room, they're not the 800 lbs they used to be. They're a 400 lbs gorilla at best.
If the Liberal Gun Club is a 90 lbs chimpanzee on the same team, we want them.
So you bet your sweet bippie I'm a member of both.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Everybody believes reasonable gun regulations are a good thing. It is just that one organization thinks banning all semi-automatic weapons is "reasonable." Anytime someone says they support "reasonable" gun regulations, I just assume they support wholesale gun bans and just don't have the courage to state it outright. May be that isn't fair; but it has sure been borne out by experience.
michaelbsc and other LGC members, what if the ACLU took the stance the we had to "compromise" a little on rape? You know, in certain instances, the woman was drunk and wearing provocative clothing, so rape in that instance was justified.
Concession ≠ Compromise
I'll take my civil rights organizations straight up please, absolutist and uncompromising.
Concession ≠ Compromise
I'll take my civil rights organizations straight up please, absolutist and uncompromising.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
I'm not making the case that you or anyone else should join to The Liberal Gun Club.
I offer the information because a number of people cannot bring themselves to support the NRA, especially Democrats. If they want it there it is.
I think you perceive them as an extension of the gun grabbers. I can't change that. But the fact is that universal background checks is far from popular.
As for myself, I am a member of both in order have a say. You have no influence if you are not a member.
What I have been saying LaPierre should be doing, contrary to your thinking that I might want to compromise, is to argue that no major federal gun laws all the way back to NFA-1934 have ever made a dent in violent crime, so forget new laws. Instead he should be going to the directors of federal organizations like the National Institute of Mental Health offering to twist off a few Congressional arms for funding. Those directors are political animals just like everybody else in Washington. They live for funding.
I offer the information because a number of people cannot bring themselves to support the NRA, especially Democrats. If they want it there it is.
I think you perceive them as an extension of the gun grabbers. I can't change that. But the fact is that universal background checks is far from popular.
As for myself, I am a member of both in order have a say. You have no influence if you are not a member.
What I have been saying LaPierre should be doing, contrary to your thinking that I might want to compromise, is to argue that no major federal gun laws all the way back to NFA-1934 have ever made a dent in violent crime, so forget new laws. Instead he should be going to the directors of federal organizations like the National Institute of Mental Health offering to twist off a few Congressional arms for funding. Those directors are political animals just like everybody else in Washington. They live for funding.
Last edited:
Sam Cade
Member
Agreed.
Ash
Member
Concession...see what that got Chamberlain? Concession only emboldens the enemy if folks would ever bother to learn history.
So is that what the principals of the Liberal Gun Club are doing? What is the name of the legal/lobby wing of the Liberal Gun Club?
Liberal Gun Club said:
Nevermind, their own website answers the question, the answer in that they do nothing on a national level, they have no voice in Washington, and they have no legal/lobby wing.
But hey, they sometimes put out a newsletter!
Joining the Liberal Gun Club is worse than doing nothing.
Last edited:
Do you want those with different political points of view to help you defend the Second Amendment or not?
It's a simple enough question. Personally, I am all for anything that gets gun owners anywhere near organized and gets them shooting. If it fosters a deeper respect of gun ownership and the Second Amendment, it can get someone to write his or her rep.
There are lots of Fudd hunters or "sportsmen" who belong to no organization and would gladly sell us and our AK's off if it means they can keep their remchesters.
At least someone who joins the LGC is participating in something, even something CMP affiliated no less.
http://ct.thecmp.org/app/v1/index.php?do=clubDisplay&club=6228
And I don't belong to the LGC, but given the reception "liberals" get from conservative gun owners, could you blame them for wanting to avoid organizations where they are not welcome?
It's a simple enough question. Personally, I am all for anything that gets gun owners anywhere near organized and gets them shooting. If it fosters a deeper respect of gun ownership and the Second Amendment, it can get someone to write his or her rep.
There are lots of Fudd hunters or "sportsmen" who belong to no organization and would gladly sell us and our AK's off if it means they can keep their remchesters.
At least someone who joins the LGC is participating in something, even something CMP affiliated no less.
http://ct.thecmp.org/app/v1/index.php?do=clubDisplay&club=6228
And I don't belong to the LGC, but given the reception "liberals" get from conservative gun owners, could you blame them for wanting to avoid organizations where they are not welcome?
Last edited:
That is exactly what I want, that is why I would discourage anyone from joining the Liberal Gun Club in the name of activism.
Pish-posh, I'm politically an anarcho-individualist yet I can still recognize whether or not an organization is effective. Joining the Liberal Gun Club for community is fine, donating to the Liberal Gun Club under the pretense of activism is delusional.
Last edited:
It may not be ideal, but its a step. It's better than nothing. How can you say that a CMP affiliated club that gets people to the range, that SPECIFICALLY TARGETS those who are more likely to be unfamiliar with guns and against their ownership, is bad thing?
It is possible that this group can plant a seed on ground that a conservative gun owner could never get to, no matter how well intentioned.
No offense, but I think my time will be better spent writing my reps instead of arguing on THR, so I wish you the best.
It is possible that this group can plant a seed on ground that a conservative gun owner could never get to, no matter how well intentioned.
No offense, but I think my time will be better spent writing my reps instead of arguing on THR, so I wish you the best.
pnolans
Member
I'm new here, but would like to add... I know enough people in Colorado who do NOT buy the gun-control argument, who are opposed to gun-control and are absolutely NOT conservative or libertarian.
I myself am not a conservative, but I'm a member of the NRA and have written to everyone I can to oppose any further gun-control legislation.
Just something to consider.
I mention this in the context of the folks discussing the Liberal Gun Club. I too am a "anarcho-individualist"..as SuperNaut called himself. I call myself a "contrarian"..
I myself am not a conservative, but I'm a member of the NRA and have written to everyone I can to oppose any further gun-control legislation.
Just something to consider.
I mention this in the context of the folks discussing the Liberal Gun Club. I too am a "anarcho-individualist"..as SuperNaut called himself. I call myself a "contrarian"..
- Status
