Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Resources

Discussion in 'Activism' started by hso, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,941
    Location:
    Illinois
    You can NOT in good conscious respect them. Period.

    I'm only one person, and can only do so much. I doubt he reads what I wrote. His secretary or staff will probably intercept it.

    But if he DOES read it, I hope that what I wrote sits in the back of his mind, nagging at his consciousness.

    Next time he's up for re-election his opponent (if pro-gun) will receive a healthy campaign contribution from yours truly. THAT is a fact. Durbin needs to go the way of the dodo bird.

    We only get two senators in congress, and 95% of the land mass in Illinois disagrees with his view.
     
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,384
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Dick Durbin as a long time anti-gunner. After losing both houses of congress in the 1994 election, anti-gun politicians found it expedient to declare support for our Second Amendment rights while concurrently acting to erode those rights.
     
  3. ole farmerbuck

    ole farmerbuck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,111
    Location:
    Western Ks
    Trent, VERY GOOD JOB!!!!! I wish I could put on paper what I think like you can. ;)
     
  4. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,941
    Location:
    Illinois
    Farmerbuck;

    Oh if I *really* spoke what's on my mind I'd probably have State Troopers knocking on my door right now.

    I toned it down a lot. :)

    And, to be honest, Politicians aren't really afraid of the lone peckerwood that lives in the hills with too many guns. They have bodyguards and law enforcement to protect them from that; it's a non-issue to them.

    But they ARE afraid of people with money financing the people that run against them.

    If it meant the difference between winning and losing, I'd sell off 75% of my gun collection to get the antigunner out of office, just to save the other 25% for my children.
     
  5. radiotom

    radiotom Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    332
    Multi-round magazines? Really getting extreme aren't we?
     
  6. sansone

    sansone Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,173
    Location:
    north florida USA
    thanks trent.. I'm hesitant to speak my mind because emotions get the better of me.. Our 400+ dictators have not a shred of honesty. They manipulate the english language to the point of useless dribble. They all must be fired
     
  7. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
    Here's the canned response from Sanford Bishop of Georgia. A better response than the one from Saxby Chambliss.

     
  8. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    47,508
    Location:
    Alabama
    One of the good guys. He should get re-elected with no problem, but we need to support him and make sure.
     
  9. DeadMoneyDrew

    DeadMoneyDrew Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Odd. Chris Coons gets an F from the NRA, but his auto-response doesn't mention anything about banning certain guns or restricting magazine size. Not sure how to interpret this one.

     
  10. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,474
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    California has http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

    It's pretty intuitive to use.

    ETA There is, however, an oft-encountered 'gotcha' in reading CA bills.

    The Legislature uses text font conventions to indicate existing, deleted, and added text to the bill documents. In bills as submitted, existing law is shown as plain black text, new text is BLUE ITALIC, deleted text is [strike]RED STRIKEOUT[/strike]. (Older web site versions do not use the colors.)

    Frequently someone will look at a bill and see existing law, and be very disturbed about something thought to be 'new'.

    Then, as bills are amended, new versions are published - but the conventions are applied relative to the prior version of the bill. That is, unmodified additions from the prior version are displayed in plain black, just as existing law is, and unmodified deletions are, well, deleted, and no longer show as changes.

    See my Calguns thread on how to read a bill.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2013
  11. Buzzard II

    Buzzard II Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Saddle Brook, N.J.
  12. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,323
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    How do we put this to use? "FYI"s are interesting, but the purpose of this forum is to provide clear implementable plans for other members to put to use.

    I think the least we can do is to link this and other videos that break the Anti stereotype about 2A supporters. Include the Sheriffs' video to show LE support 2A. Include articulate young people, women, artists, ...

    http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=290&t=Blacks-speak-out-against-gun-control
    http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=296&t=Never-Again-Protect-the-Second-Amendment
    http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=291&t=Preserve-gun-rights-save-black-lives
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2013
  13. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,412
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    That's a great idea HSO. Make sure everyone knows there are all forms of gun owners; moms, dads, veterans, minorities, etc.
     
  14. RustHunter87

    RustHunter87 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    MAINE
    every American should watch this ,that last speaker really hit the nail on the head
     
  15. ThorinNNY

    ThorinNNY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Location:
    3 hours North of Syracuse, 2 hours west of Lake Ch
    Wonderful message! How do we get it to the people who REAALLY need to see it?
     
  16. archigos

    archigos Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    The Free State
    Reply to Ruger Email from Senator Ayotte (R-NH)

    Just received a reply to my submission of the letter through Ruger to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):
     
  17. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,412
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Sounds pretty good. Still not 100% on her stance for universal background checks though. Might want to fire off another e-mail/mail/phone call and let her know we do NOT support a universal background check.
     
  18. xquercus

    xquercus Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    Central Maine
    Reply to My Email to Senator Angus King (Maine)

    A few weeks ago I wrote Senators King and Collins of Maine urging their no vote on S 150 or any other gun control legislation being discussed in the senate. Today, I received this response from Senator King. It's an interesting read. While it sounds like he will not be supporting any AWB-type legislation, he is now a co-sponsor of both S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. His letter, sent as part of a mass mailing, follows:



    Thank you for contacting me to share your views on guns and gun violence; I appreciate your taking the time to be in touch. I have received thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from Maine people on this issue and have personally met with gun owners and representatives of Maine's sportsmen's community as well as Maine citizens who have long advocated for stronger gun laws.

    I have listened in order to understand the various points of view in this debate and to search for practical, effective steps that can be taken to lessen the toll that guns take in our society (some 30,000 deaths each year) while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    I am sending this response to everyone who has written or called so that people on both sides of the debate can better understand my approach to this complicated issue. Though you may not fully agree with my conclusions, I want to you know my thinking and how I am reaching my decisions.

    Our experience here in Maine proves that access to guns doesn't necessarily mean an increase in gun violence. Our state has a relatively high rate of gun ownership but a comparatively low level of gun crime. I believe Maine's experience speaks to the long-standing heritage and traditions of the hunting community and of our gun-owning citizens which has instilled a standard of responsible firearm ownership that is passed down from generation to generation.

    (For a fascinating and well-balanced discussion of the role that the culture of gun ownership can play in this issue, I suggest an article in the February 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Why the Gun Debate is Off Target by Dan Baum).

    As you know, there are many ideas currently under discussion that seek to address the problem of gun violence in various ways. In thinking about these proposals--and Maine's experience--I start with the premise that the most important single thing we can do is to keep guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably not responsible and pose a danger to themselves or others. Along these lines, I have recently co-sponsored two bills: S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.

    The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act targets straw purchasing and gun trafficking, two common ways that criminals acquire firearms. Unclear language in current laws regarding these practices means that they amount to little more than lying on a government form, which is difficult to prosecute and carries minimal penalties. This bill would strengthen that language and increase the related penalties, allowing law enforcement and the Justice Department to crackdown on these dangerous practices.

    Currently, individuals known or suspected by the FBI to be involved with terrorist activities can purchase firearms or acquire an explosives license. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act would add these individuals to the existing group of people prohibited from buying firearms or obtaining an explosives license. I recognize that there are rare cases where an individual may wrongly be identified as a known or suspected terrorist. This bill contains a vital element of due process which allows a denied individual to challenge and overturn any such mistake.

    I support the effort to implement universal background checks, with common sense exemptions such as transfers within families. Currently, 40% of gun sales fall outside the instant check system, which makes little sense and actually disadvantages licensed gun dealers in Maine and elsewhere. I am still reviewing ways that we can make these checks more effective, but I believe there is a clear need to close the current loopholes in order to keep guns out of the hands of those proven to be dangerously mentally ill or criminally violent. Taking further steps to prevent these individuals from getting firearms can be accomplished without creating a national gun registry or limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    I am also considering the possibility of limiting the size of ammunition magazines. In the recent gun massacres, a jammed magazine or the time necessary to reload has often provided the opportunity to stop the shooting.

    After a great deal of thought, however, I still have serious concerns about the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons--principally because I just don't think it will work. I believe that such a bill places too much emphasis on the cosmetic appearance of particular firearms rather than their actual functionality.

    Banning guns because they look a certain way will not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon gun violence. In addition, manufacturers made minor adaptations which rendered the previous ban largely ineffective, and I expect the same thing would happen this time around.

    It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, these weapons do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes--over 90%--involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

    The answer to gun violence does not lie solely in tougher gun laws, however. Equally important are the questions that recent incidents raise about the breakdown of community and the adequacy of our mental health system to identify and treat potentially violent individuals. We clearly need to do a better job understanding and reporting mental illness so that we can enforce existing laws.

    Thanks again for your message. I know how strongly people feel about these questions--on both sides--and am working hard to find positive steps that will diminish the terrible toll of gun violence while also respecting the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Maine and across the country. Not an easy task, but one I'm convinced we can accomplish.

    Best Regards,

    ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    United States Senator



    P.S., Many of you have written expressing the view that the Second Amendment is absolute and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws whatsoever. Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, this view is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.

    Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.

    Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia went on to make this point very clearly,

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
     
  19. thecarfarmer

    thecarfarmer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Just outside Seattle
    My email exchange with Rick Larsen

    Just hit the 'Send' button on this five minutes ago...

    Anybody else want to email Mr. Larsen?

    -Bill
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  20. RX-178

    RX-178 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,647
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    When the appropriate response to a person who is advocating, or committing treason, through the willful disregard of their oath to uphold the Constitution, is a tersely worded email...

    Well I don't even know how to finish that sentence, but it sure is depressing :(
     
  21. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,078
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Larsen is a true gun and Constitution hater. Simply start a campaign to vote against him and vote for his opponent next year.
     
  22. Twmaster

    Twmaster Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,074
    Location:
    Dallas, Republic of Texas
  23. JSolie

    JSolie Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Murrieta, CA
    Got this from my Representative earlier today. Wish my senators shared his views, but alas, they don't (and introduce bills like S.150)

     
  24. Jake L

    Jake L Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    One more instance of a Democrat who shouldn't be voted for by anyone who values the right to keep and bare arms.
     
  25. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    857
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    New Reply from Se. Bill Nelson - Mar '13 (adds SCOTUS text)

    Dear Mr. XXXXX:

    Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

    I grew up on a ranch and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I have had guns all my life. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms. I support the Second Amendment.

    In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

    I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Nelson
     

Share This Page