Action: now's the time to walk the walk...by talking the talk

[Justin]

Unfortunately, the link posted to the entire study no longer seems to be active. I popped over to the NIJ's website and found a 12-page .pdf document that condenses a lot of that information down into digestible nuggets.

http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

However, if anyone has a link to the original study that still works, please post it.

 

[alan]

Justin:

How many people, including yourself, are actually surprised at the "non-operational status" of the original link you mentioned. Perhaps I'm merely suspicious, but I wonder who might of pulled it, possibly even why.

 

[Nightfall]

I still have the complete, original report in PDF on my hard drive, and I am certainly willing to give it to anybody who either wants it personally or somebody who is looking to set up a new place to download it from.

 

[Correia]

Contacted my reps. Will contact again, as well as committee members as soon as we know who they are.

 

[dustind]

I PMed nightfall, i will post the study online (is that legal for me to do??) for anyone to download once i get it.

 

[Nightcrawler]

One of president Bush's lackeys came out and said he'd support signing a renewal of the AW ban. No suprise there, he said the same thing during his campaign and probably wants to appear consistent.

However, Bush BARELY won this time around, and he dang well knows it. It was so close that had the slightest thing gone the other way, we'd be haivng a President Gore right now.

We have to make it absolutely clear that doing this will alienate the gun owners, just like his father did. Hopefully, though, it'll never get to Bush. The best bet is that it dies in some House subcommittee.

Even if we accomplish that, we can't let our guard down. Remember, they can pass a law anytime they want. However, if their big push fails, it'll really knock the wind out of their sails and it'll give us a little breathing room.

 

[Justin]

I PMed nightfall, i will post the study online (is that legal for me to do??) for anyone to download once i get it.

Since you're not looking to profit from posting the study, it should be kosher with copyright laws. You can copy/distribute a lot of things so long as the documents are to be used for academic or research purposes. If you're really unsure, check the PDF file and see if you can get in touch with someone connected with the publication and ask them if it'd be cool for you to post it on the web.

Do keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and that my understanding of copyright laws is really only in the broad sense.

edited because it was late and I can't spell.

 

[alan]

Nightfall

Assuming that the "long version", which I would appreciate a copy of by the way, is a "public document, one issued by a government agency", appears that such is the case, I don't believe that copywrite enters consideration at all, particularly since there is no profit motive involved.

I'm not a laywer, nor do I play one on either the radio or television.

 

[johnr]

Oleg, for whatever it's worth I have started spreading this information across all the boards I belong to... time to do the usual activism thing, letters, phone calls, talk radio... dadgum it, it never seems to end, does it?

 

[Oleg Volk]

We are at a disadvantage in this business, as most THR folks have jobs, other responsibilities. We can't spend 8 hours every day on the phone or writing letters asking for more government-issued loot.

What we can do is be efficient and help each other to make the best of a few minutes a day each one can spare to make at least one contact to remind the elected and unelected thugs how to behave. I am watching this thread for two reasons:

1. It saves me the research time, provides new ideas.

AND

2. I will take people who do something now more seriously than those who just promise to be in the next foxhole if and when real fighting starts.

 

[Correia]

Any final word yet who the committee members are going to be? Hatch is sure to be one of them, and he is one of my senators. But he is sick of hearing from me.

 

[Al in Md]

There is one aspect of the AWB that is going to be hard to argue against and that is the NICS check. You know how a (insert your favorite number in the millions here) felons have been prevented from buying guns at gun shops? And after all no honest man needs more than a ten round mag.(thank you Bill Ruger) How can these points be argued in our favor? Al

 

[Mark Tyson]

I thought NICS was part of the Brady Bill, not the AWB.

 

[Al in Md]

Mark, I stand corrected on the NICS issue. I got the Brady provisions mixed with the AWB. Al

 

[Hard Charger]

The NICS is a good tactic to use for the sunset. When we contact our politicians, we need to remind them that the instant check system was not in place in 1994. Since it is now, anyone that wants to by an homeland defense rifle has to pass an instant check. So that keeps them out of the hands of criminals.

We all know the truth, but the left likes to brag about how the instant check system has prevented so many criminals from getting firearms. We may as well take it one step farther.

In our letters, we should point out reasons and justifications for the sunset. That gives them something to use while under fire.

A good example is the magazine restriction. In my area, the probabilities of encountering multiple attackers is above 50%. A citizen that is scared and in a self defense situation will not be 100% accurate with their fire, regardless of what a lot of people want to think. So they will need more than 10 rounds.

Memphis TN has an average of 18 home invasions a day. These are all situations where mulitiple attackers storm into a home. That is the perfect example for justification of large capacity magazines that are currently banned.

If we can use statistics and logic, instead of emotions, it will be hard for them to support a renewal, and then opposition to a renewal is logically justified.

Give them a reason, other than your vote, to sunset the ban. Let them use facts and figures, instead of the threat of losing a vote, to fall back on to justify a vote against the renewal. If they have logical reasons they can state, to oppose accusations of a fear of "the gun lobby", they will be more justified in opposing a renewal.

The NICS will prevent criminals from getting the firearms that are currently banned, so we don't need the ban when we have the NICS. Or so we would have them believe.

 

[Al in Md]

I have a question. If a replacement AWB makes it through Congress how long can Dubbya just sit on it by not signing it. In this case I could envision a last minute ban attached to other legislation and forwarded to Bush. If he could delay signing or veto until after the election this could defuse some of politics played by the anti's. Al

 

[Hard Charger]

The President would not sit on it, he would sign it in a big ceremony and give the pens to Feinstein, Schumer etc.

The statement from the White House was one of support for a renewal. What part of that makes you think he would not sign it ASAP?

The reason he is signing it to begin with is to avoid it as a political issue. Letting it sit, or any delay will be viewed as opposing the renewal, and he will get his chops busted on the issue at every press conference and debate.

If he says he supports the renewal to avoid the issue, any delay will just bring the issue up for him to have to explain.

Mr President, in 20 uuhhhmmmm or less, can you explain why you have not signed the renewal? Nope, I don't see him setting himself up to hear that and to have to explain it.

If it gets to his desk, he will sign it. Unless the entire gun owning community rise up and threaten the republican majorities of the Congress. There are not enough gun owners willing to take action for that to happen.

Then there is the fact that the NRA supported the elder Bush after he signed gun control in the form of executive orders.

It is our fault for electing a big, inarticulate, dud to the White House.

 

[Mark Tyson]

I thought the NRA didn't back th elder Bush in his reelection campaign.

 

[Hard Charger]

The official line from the NRA with regard to Bush 41 was:

"Even though the 4 years with President Bush were bad, having Bill Clinton as president would be a nightmare"

As close to an identical quote as I can remember. Those were the key terms; bad and nightmare.

That endorsement was nothing more than endorsing the lesser of 2 evils. That hurt us in the long run.

That is where the NRA blew it, and that is how gun owners are about to blow it again. If the NRA had stood firm and not endorsed Bush 41, then that would have sent a signal that we will only vote for a pro gun candidate. The results would have been the same (clinton won) and the message to future candidates would have been strong.

People speak of President Bush not being willing to use his "political capital" for this or for that. We in the gun owning community need to be willing to spend some of ours. Even if it means 4 years with President John Kerry, and a good lesson for the republicans.

The Congress will be there to keep the Democrat president in check.

Remember though: sometimes you have to prune a tree to make it bear more fruit.

4 years with a dem president may be uncomfortable, but it will definitely prove to the republicans that we are serious about our gun rights.

The really sucky thing is, the gun issue was scaring Democrats. They were running away from it as fast as they could. Even Ed Rendell, Gov of PA, was lying about not being rabid anti gun; he almost pretended to be pro gun. When leftist like him try to be "less anti gun" it means they are afraid of the issue.

To enhance the Democrats fear, we have got to withhold votes and support from Bush 43. Support and vote for the other republicans in Congress, but not Bush 43.

If we vote for Bush, that will be sign to others that the gun issue is not the problem they thought.

Fish or cut bait. Time to prune the tree.

 

[dustind]

I agree Hard Charger, but how does a candidate know who it was that did or didn't vote for him/her? Even if gun owners abandoned Bush, would he know it was us who left him, and not soccar moms? I guess letters and exit polls would help

 

[Sharpie1]

Thanks to "Boats"

Thank-you to "Boats" who posted the names and addresses of congressmen who are relevant to this AWB thing getting defeated in committee.

I took the time to type a letter - then I hand addressed each envelope -- hope this sends a clear message to the congress-critters.

I also hope that everyone else does the same. Don't depend on everyone else to do it!!!!

TD

 

[general]

I've got my 15 letters ready for May 5th - If anyone needs addresses or help in any way - email me or pm me... I'm just wondering what kind of an impact this will have - I won't let up.. guys - This is up to us gun owners and 2nd supporters. Remind everone how important this is.
Time to feed the hogs after this...

 

[Hard Charger]

Dustind,

When the republicans hear from us, and find out how such a large number of people feel about the president's stance, they will have a good hint as to what will happen. And after the fact, what happened.

The parties have demographic breakdowns of states and groups. I doubt many of the so called "soccer moms" voted for Bush anyway. They like a big spender and in 2000 we didn't know Bush was going to be such a big government, big spender.

I live in Tennessee. Bill Frist is up for reelection just like Bush. When Frist gets (trivial numbers to make a point) 1 million votes in the state, and Bush gets 800,000, it will turn their heads. There is no real reason why a voter would vote for Frist and against Bush: except that TN is a pro gun state, and Bush is an anti gun president.

It is a point we don't have to prove, they will figure it out for themselves. We have been raising cain since the Bush position was revealed. Any shortage of votes or support for Bush will be blamed on him alienating gun owners. The people he is trying to appeal to, won't come over to his side. They will vote against him just like we voted against Gore. It was a pitiful tactic for him to employ. The anti gun stance of Bush may cause him to lose the entire South. In that situation, there will be only one possible reason; Bush is an anti gunner.

In the post election analysis, there will be blame put somewhere. The one group that Bush should be able to count on has repeatedly threatened to withhold their support. When they start connecting the dots, it will be gun owners that will be credited as deserting Bush.

Gun owners are credited for the republican majority in Congress and for getting Bush elected in 2000, among other things. The Democrats are running away from gun control as a core issue.

So any shortage of votes for Bush, when he is so popular and has high approval ratings, will have to be blamed on his position for the renewal. It will be the only reason for any dissension within his base.

So, we really don't have to prove it, they will assume it. We just need to see to it that Bush doesn't get our votes.


FWIW: I think our nation is somewhat evenly divided between the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" are those that look to government to take from the "haves" and give to them. Every year the "have not" group gets bigger. The election in 2000 showed just how evenly divided the nations is. I don't think that those numbers will change much in 2004. The same people that crave big government will vote against Bush, and the same people that despise big government will vote for Bush. I just don't think his war time popularity will hold up (like his father) when he starts getting attacked by the media and several Democrats seeking the nomination.

He may pick up a few "have not" votes because he has proven himself to love big spending and big government. But why would a "have not" take a chance on an imitation, when they could have the real thing?

So, the gun vote will be crucial in 2004 because the margin will be just as tight as it was in 2000. The Bush Campaign is too stupid to realize it.

Now is the time for us to flex our muscle, with a minimum risk (we still have Congress) with the greater of the two evils.