Is this the same Pelosi who commited treason by purposely disregarding an executive order by the Presient and traveling to Syria to help to communicate with enemies who threaten our countries security? This woman likes to play God, she probably thinks she is a goddess of some sort. Yeah, we can really trust a politician who would have been hanging 150 years for treason. As far as anyone trusting this witch, I trust her as much as I trust a kleptomaniac with my watch. She will await any opportunity to wreak havoc on people who enjoy their freedoms. She has no problem reinstating an AWB, but she is an opportunist and she only will do what gets her popularity points. I personally, believe, this communist named Pelosi, if she had her way, nobody would own guns, except her security thugs.
Pelosi Pledges Compromise on Assault Weapons Ban
- Thread starter Coltman 77
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
CoRoMo
Member
Now I see what she's doing...
Blackbeard
Member
My conspiratorial alarm is beeping. Take a look at the timeline:
Feb 25: Holder calls for reinstatement of AWB
Mar 10: Gunman kills 10 in Alabama
Mar 18: 65 House dems send letter opposing AWB
Mar 20: Felon kills 2 police officers in Oakland
Mar 29: Gunman kills 7 in nursing home in North Carolina
Apr 03: Immigrant kills 14 in Binghamton, NY
Apr 04: Gunman kills 3 police in Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 04: Father shoots his 5 children and self in Washington
Apr 07: Pelosi calls for "compromise" on AWB
Feb 25: Holder calls for reinstatement of AWB
Mar 10: Gunman kills 10 in Alabama
Mar 18: 65 House dems send letter opposing AWB
Mar 20: Felon kills 2 police officers in Oakland
Mar 29: Gunman kills 7 in nursing home in North Carolina
Apr 03: Immigrant kills 14 in Binghamton, NY
Apr 04: Gunman kills 3 police in Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 04: Father shoots his 5 children and self in Washington
Apr 07: Pelosi calls for "compromise" on AWB
Perhaps.
Make no mistake, if Pelosi had her druthers, there would be an AWB tomorrow. I have no illusions about this.
However, Pelosi needs to be re-elected. In order to be re-elected, she needs to be seen as effecive. In order to be seen as effective, she needs to be the Speaker of the House. In order to be Speaker of the House, she needs to hold a majority.
She is in no danger of being upset by a republican, let alone a pro-gun republican, in a general election. Look at her district- that ain't gonna happen. Ever.
What she is in danger of losing is a primary, and she could lose it to a moonbat on her left flank. I know this is hard to believe, but Pelosi comes from an area where she is percieved as a centrist hack who bows to Republican pressure, and there is a lot of sentiment to unseat her and get a "real" liberal in there.
Her greatest asset, right now, is her position as Speaker. Why would you vote out the speaker of the house in order to replace her with some n00b? That's no way to make federal money flow to your district. However, the moment she loses the position, she is very vulnerable. If she presides over another midterm election like 1994, she will probably be out of a job, and she knows it.
Our job is to remind her that passing ANY sort of AWB will result in an electoral bloodbath on the blue side of the aisle. That is absolutely crucial to our cause. The minute they think they can pass an AWB and not lose a majority, they'll do it.
Believe it.
Mike
Like many others said: keep up the pressure. Criminals won't be affected by any ban or "compromise." I want my 2nd Amendment rights and I've made sure my elected officials know it. I'll keep on them about it too. If the Dems pass any ban they'll find themselves out of office, along with any Republicans who vote with them.
Texas is safer since we passed a CCW law, and our Legislature is considering allowing open carry as well. It's not hard to connect the dots here. Armed law-abiding citizens are a bigger deterrent to crime than anything else, and if the anti-gunners want less crime, they need to realize that our 2nd Amendment rights give we the people the means to achieve that without costing taxpayers a dime.
Texas is safer since we passed a CCW law, and our Legislature is considering allowing open carry as well. It's not hard to connect the dots here. Armed law-abiding citizens are a bigger deterrent to crime than anything else, and if the anti-gunners want less crime, they need to realize that our 2nd Amendment rights give we the people the means to achieve that without costing taxpayers a dime.
a compromise sounds along the lines of mainly focusing on 'hi-cap' mags and adding non-sporting rifles to the NFA guidelines without actually banning or restricting their supply or features, and/or raising age requirements (a de-facto with the NFA idea)
Sounds like a good compromise on the single issue from an outside point, but all in all we all see the goal. Screw them, screw Pelosi, screw compromise.
edit: I also don't see any sense of a compromise happening. The LAST ban was a compromise. Any new, looser idea won't last long, because I doubt that alot of people will be rolling over or getting into bed like they did last time. There is way more polarity over not only gun control, but over just the AWB itself.
Sounds like a good compromise on the single issue from an outside point, but all in all we all see the goal. Screw them, screw Pelosi, screw compromise.
edit: I also don't see any sense of a compromise happening. The LAST ban was a compromise. Any new, looser idea won't last long, because I doubt that alot of people will be rolling over or getting into bed like they did last time. There is way more polarity over not only gun control, but over just the AWB itself.
Last edited:
No matter what the House does, they have to pass it in the Senate. Nancy could get an AWB bill passed in the House TODAY. She has the votes. The Senate, OTOH, has a few Democrats who would NOT vote for it, and a few other Democrats who would probably vote for it but would be quite angry at the leadership for forcing their hand as they would risk losing their seats in the next election. Put pressure on the Senate. Nancy will be reluctant to let anything get to the House floor if it means Democrats will lose power in the Senate.
People are worried about keeping their jobs, paying for their families’ health care, educating their children, and retiring with the kind of security their parents and grandparents enjoyed. A long and divisive fight over a gun control issue will only distract us from giving these more important issues the attention they deserve. That distraction would be very damaging to Pelosi's political coinage. So she doesn't want to push gun control, even though she still clings to it as her base ideology.
So what does it mean to find 'some level of compromise' in light of recent precedent laid by the Supreme Court? It means you examine the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the old AWB) and modify any necessary provisions so that it survives a challenge under Heller. Then pass it into law.
So what does it mean to find 'some level of compromise' in light of recent precedent laid by the Supreme Court? It means you examine the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the old AWB) and modify any necessary provisions so that it survives a challenge under Heller. Then pass it into law.
ServiceSoon
Member
My understanding is we need more republican house representatives than Democrat representative to prevent Pelosi from becoming the speaker of the house again...
Throw in the ATF director fudges the 90% of firearms the Mexican cartels use are from the USA. You can thank FOX28 for that news report.
John Q. Pirate
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 48
Here's the text of a letter I plan to send to my congresscritters- any critiques are welcome. Please feel free to use it in whole, part, or with any alterations you see fit for your own elected officials.
Let's keep the pressure on!
Let's keep the pressure on!
Last edited:
Prince Yamato
Member
People always talk about how we'll have registration... we won't. Registration is so prohibitively expensive, it would never work. It failed in Canada where there are far fewer gun owners and far fewer guns. It cost the Canadians something like $5 Billion. How much do you think that would cost our government with the hundreds of millions of gun owners? I bet hundreds of billions or more.
There's too may AWs to put them on the NFA list. That would cost too much as well, again, "registration" is too costly. We're in the middle of a recession, if they forced gun owners to pay to register their weapons, there'd be riots.
You can't pass an HR 1022 clone or whatever that old bill was. It covers too many Fudd Guns. If you arrest Bob because Grandpa's Squirrel gun has a barrel shroud or "thing that goes up", you'll get your hunters and skeet shooters throwing a fit.
Any AWB that comes down the pipeline that has a prayer of being passed, will be very similar to the last one.
The last one didn't do anything and wasn't effective. Ergo, they're on the ropes with this gun control thing. Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.
AlaskaErik
Member
I don't believe in compromise when it deals with a Constitutional right.
RapidFireBeak
Member
Funny you should mention that. I was curious myself and looked it up the other day. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 1998 there were 12500 fatalities due to drivers with blood alcohol content (BAC) levels of .10 or over. There may be more recent data of which I am not aware. Works out to about 1000 deaths per month.
This is an interesting tactic to use in argument against individuals whose anti-firearm stance is something like "guns have no legitimate purpose and they contribute to death and injury and should thus be banned." Well, alcohol-impaired drivers cause as many deaths as firearm homicides per year. Unlike the majority of homicides (which are criminal on criminal), the victims here are randomly chosen from those unlucky enough to be on the road with the drunk. So in the interest of safety (and intellectual consistency), being that alcoholic drinks have absolutely no legitimate use (cost money to impair judgment and lead to bad decisions), you must support a return to prohibition, right?
Of course, almost nobody supports making booze illegal. People seem to be a lot more on the side of "blame the individual committing the act, personal responsibility" rather than "blame the instrument" when it comes to something they enjoy. I have yet to hear a cogent response to that argument (although I'm sure I could find someone that supports gun and booze prohibition.)
Ref
In other words, since we know that the Heller decision prohibits outright bans on firearms "in common usage", and given that the AR15 type rifle is described by some sources as "the most popular centerfire rifle in America", the best we can hope for is some kind of tit-for-tat registration scheme. Pretty please compromise?
(When's the last time the Brady side has compromised with us, again?)
Do keep the activist pressure up. Write politicians and letters to the editors expressing our views in reasonable ways, with factual backing. But the current argument from their side is certainly not from a position of strength. I agree with the "testing the waters" explanation.
alemonkey
Member
Great letter, John Q.
Maybe we should be moving this to the Activism forum?
Maybe we should be moving this to the Activism forum?
FiREhAwk
Member
As long as the economy is in shambles I do not think we have anything to worry about, but as soon as things turn around and congress has to find something else to debate over, gun control will be front and center again.
Brian Dale
Member
Continuing to contact legislators is important, and the message that they need to understand is simple:
If you vote for gun control, you'll lose your cushy job.
If you vote for gun control, you'll lose your cushy job.
Kind of Blued
Member
Bingo.
That's about all there is to this discussion.
That's about all there is to this discussion.
CoRoMo
Member
- Feb 25: Holder calls for reinstatement of AWB
- Mar 26: Hillary reiterates the call for an AWB
- Apr 07: Pelosi calls for "compromise" on AWB
- Apr 08: In Holder's interview on CBS...
And the panic buying just rolls on.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
It's all a conspiracy to fix the economy through ammo and gun sales.
Our GDP will double based on ammo sales alone.
I agree that registration wouldn't have much if any affect on the criminal use of firearms. But when, ever, have Congress, let alone our current President, shown any worry about what one of they're pet programs might cost? The last thing that would slow them down when it came to passing a ban or any other legislation would be what the program might cost.
In Washington money grows on trees, and comes from printing presses. They can make all they want.
Also when it comes to gun control legislation, "compromise" simply means, "how much are you willing to give up in exchange for nothing?" "Middle ground" is the point they start from. They always take, but never give. My answer would be, "The guns you want to restrict are being bought by the tens of thousands, maybe the hundreds of thousands. How many votes are you willing to give up?" That's the kind of language they understand.
Last edited:
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Not complicated
I gotcher "compromise" - RIGHT HEEEEEYAR!
Write your pro-gun critters, folks - it's about to heat up! NO NEW SO-CALLED "GUN CONTROL", PERIOD!!!
I gotcher "compromise" - RIGHT HEEEEEYAR!
Write your pro-gun critters, folks - it's about to heat up! NO NEW SO-CALLED "GUN CONTROL", PERIOD!!!
JImbothefiveth
Member
I think they are getting arrogant. Just a month ago Pelosi put a stop to the idea. Now it's time for "comprimise"
- Status
