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

Rumors on Sen. Begich..

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by theshephard, Apr 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. theshephard

    theshephard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Received word from GOA today that rumors are circulating about Begich voting for the compromise (of liberty). :(
    Wrote the following to him today, and would encourage other Alaskans to write him as well.

    "Rumors are circulating that the Alaska delegation, most especially you, will vote for the Toomey-Manchin bill or some flavor of falsely labeled compromise. Please, I urge the utmost fervor in your rejection of this. For a good legal analysis of the bill, please read David Kopel's write up here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/th...toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/
    I trust you're familiar with Eugene Volokh (recently named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country) and David Kopel's credentials (he's testified before congress on many occasions). It should suffice to say that the analysis is solid and a quick view into what's wrong with this bill.
    More and more, bills are named with a language that I can't call anything but Orwell's Truthspeak or doublespeak, in that they purport to be the exact opposite of what they are. E.g. the Patriot Act was anything but. Similarly this bill, labeled for it's Second Amendment Protections, does anything but. The reasons why I say this are clearly laid out in the analysis above.
    We know that nothing in this bill, let alone Feinstein's AWB or Schumer's 'universal' background check bill, would have prevented Newtown. The very people pushing this bill acknowledge this. So it fails to be effective in reducing mass killings.
    We know this bill and the other coming amendments do nothing to address inner-city crime, based on the surveys the government has conducted with inmates about where they acquire weapons. So it fails to have any substantial impact on the overall gun-related homicide rate.
    What we do know is that it has a chilling effect on Second Amendment rights. As Kopel says, "Today's exceptions are tomorrow's loopholes". This is why so many of us consider any gun control to be a slippery slope and compromises to be duplicitous. We know, today, that the bills won't be effective towards the stated goals. Next year, ten years from now, the exceptions will be blamed, and this progression of going just one step further down a bad path is what yields the steady erosion of liberty.
    Today, Obama stated that "The American people refuse to be terrorized." Will we? I measure that statement against the reality that we have had a tendency to call for the elimination of liberties in the face of national-stage trauma for fear that these liberties will be again abused. What other definition of "terrorized" can we apply but this exact result? We have been terrorized by Newtown.
    Weeks ago, Obama asked a crowd in Colorado, "Don't you want to know who you sell a gun to?" I know who I sell a gun to, as do all law-abiding people. The question is, do I want the government to know who I sell a gun to, and the answer is a resounding no. 2A was built on the idea of protecting the people from governments, either others or our own. Not on hunting deer. To this end, putting the government in a position of oversight for the transfer and possession of commonly used arms is a conflict of interest, despite what you think the odds are that our government will remain perpetually benign.
    These laws, if followed at all, will only be followed by the law-abiding by definition. In the meantime, criminals will ignore the law, as they do today. Simultaneously, the government's inability to enforce this law as with so many others in the long list in the federal criminal code will lead to a further erosion of faith in the law, distrust in the blindness of justice, and a callous disregard for the law.
    Do you honestly think folk in Ft. Wainwright or in other communities will be bothered to run NICS checks on their neighbors? Do you honestly think this will breed anything but more hostility to the federal government in Alaska when such laws are selectively enforced? Ask Jim Wilde.
    Finally, if we know the law is ineffective towards its stated purpose, the terrorized legislators with the 'just do something' attitude state that 'if it only saves one life, we have to do it'. No. We don't. I mean to say that we consistently DON'T do everything we can to save just one life. There are countless examples of things we don't do because the trade-off isn't worth it. More people die every year riding helmetless on bicycles than get murdered with a gunshot. Yet have we enacted a federal helmet law? If the payback on such a law is so greater than the Toomey 'compromise', why aren't we proposing that first? Banning cigarettes? If we could only save one life.. Our society recognizes that liberties come with risks. The numbers, read: the facts, state that guns are very low risk compared to other activities that we, with wide-eyes and enthusiasm, accept every day despite their horrific death tolls. The argument that gun control has any great effect on dropping our death toll is a canard and it deserves as much respect. Unlike riding helmetless or smoking, the Second Amendment is a right of last resort. It is cherished in our country's history and the language says 'shall not be infringed'. I consider your non-cooperation with gun control a moral imperative in the context of our nation, and just as pressing an imperative as cooperation with the good."

    Hopefully it helps strengthen the spine.. :/
     
  2. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,343
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Don't write, call, and keep it short and specific. We don't have time anymore for letters.

    "I expect you to vote NO on Manchin-Toomey." or "I expect you to vote NO on S.649"
     
  3. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    Great letter. Should have gone to the Alaskan papers. Still should.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
     
  4. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    I've got a hard time seeing Begich going Dem-party line on gun control with 2014 and re-election looming. If he does vote anti-gun on anything in the works now, he'll be needing to polish off his resume since people up here in AK will not be amused at all.
     
  5. theshephard

    theshephard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    He didn't and the bill did a Hindenburg

    Only the beginning, though I'm glad we took this round.
    Y'know, Horse, I'm with ya and +1 but at the same time I never find it good to overestimate the strength of any legislator's spine in face of their caucus and executive, especially when aided with a 'bipartisan compromise' bill. I even worry about Murk under the circumstances. Yeah, if I were a betting man, I'd put money on Begich - he voted against bringing the bill to the floor - but never hurts to keep communicating our opposition to make sure he remembers. :) He earned his paycheck this week, afaic.
     
  6. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    It's not over yet

    I know a lot of us have stepped back to take a breather after the recent push for gun control. But, it's definitely not over. Begich has been running ads touting his decision to vote against it, saying Alaskans need guns because of bears (or some other such nonsense). But, this just came out in the Alaska Dispatch yesterday, June 14 (near the bottom of the page).

    So, it looks like the pressure is still on within the Democrat party regarding the passage of gun control (but we already knew that, didn't we).

    I think it's time to contact Begich again, and let him know that we appreciate his "no" vote, but that the 2nd Amendment isn't about bear protection any more than it's about duck hunting or target shooting. It's about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government - like the kind of government that thinks it's not only OK to spy on it's own citizens, but it's also OK to use drones to kill them with no trial.
     
  7. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,414
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Definitely put the pressure on him. I say this in several threads but; spread the word at your local gunshops, Cabelas, Dick's Sporting Goods, Walmart, etc. to get people to call and write him. Don't let him forget that we are still watching him and will still unseat him if he breaks his Oath to defend the Constitution.
     
  8. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I can't see Begich switching over. He's not going to be vulnerable from the left because the anti-gun left in Alaska is microscopic and he's the darling of the party. If he's smart he'll wear the Bloomberg attacks as a badge of honor.

    I've already written him, so I'm going to take the next step and GIVE HIM MONEY for the reelection bid.
     
  9. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    Just remember his first order of business in the next session of congress is going to be to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.
     
  10. Radagast
    • Contributing Member

    Radagast Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,148
    Location:
    Australia/OZ
    So? Think strategically. If Bloomberg is going to try and subvert or replace Begich, then supporting him now is a positive for the pro-gun side. Its best to have pro-gun candidates running from both sides.
    Republican Alaskan gun owners can still vote for the other guy at the general election.
    Ensuring the re-election of pro-gun Democrats helps the overall pro-firearms movement. The 2nd amendment is a right of all Americans, Republicans, Democrats & libertarians; black, brown, white, red and yellow.
    The Democrat leadership is intent on destroying that right, but some Republicans are also willing to be go along with them if they can get away with it. Allowing a false division along party lines does not help that right. Shooters need to be pervasive in all sides of politics.

    The Ds & Rs think they are the two factions of the permanent ruling class, but to the people politicians should be treated like dogs.
    Positive re-enforcement is needed. If the dog is good, give it a treat (Campaign money). If a dog is bad, smack its nose (refuse support and tell them why). If the dog bites, have it put down (Colorado recall). At the moment there are more good dogs on the R side, but this is a battle for the long term.
    Begich has been a good dog. So give him a pat and a treat.

    I know its an insulting way of describing elected representatives who are technically members of the human race, but if it works, it works.
    Just don't send a note saying 'Good dog!' when you send a few bucks to their campaign fund.
     
  11. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    Just pointing out even moderate dems at the national level are going to elect leadership with extreme points of view and probably rubber stamp any judicial nominees from the current admin.

    I'm trying to not alienate our otherwise liberal board members here, I for one am very glad this issue has a decent amount of political cross over. But what is unfortunate about our political system at the national level is moderate members empower the more extreme elements in their party.
     
  12. Radagast
    • Contributing Member

    Radagast Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,148
    Location:
    Australia/OZ
    vamo: Indeed.
    Which is why the shooting community has to go all out at presidential elections to ensure bad nominees do not get to the starting gate. Presidents get to pick the nominees.
    There have only been four nominees actually voted down by the Senate in the last 120 years, all Republican choices, none Democrat.
    Based on past history, expecting a Republican senate to reject a bad candidate is wishful thinking. So attention in the Congress must be on keeping those who are pro-gun and replacing those that are not, so that bad legislation cannot pass, no matter presidential, party or moneyed interest pressure.
    There are a limited number of seats likely to change hands at a given election. A limited number of those are held by pro-gunners, a limited number are held by antis.
    Getting rid of the antis that can be gotten rid of is a more valuable exercise than getting rid of a squishy pro-gunner in the hope that his or her untested replacement will not be a squish or a closet anti.
    As this is the case, rewarding the squish for his recent good behavior is a needful thing, especially when he is under a lot of party and moneyed interest pressure.
    If the other squishes see that they can buck the machine and keep their seats, then they be more likely to harden up on the issue.
     
  13. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    It's a valid point, but it cuts the other way too. If all our pro-gun eggs are in one GOP basket, and the GOP basket takes a spill, then we have a real problem. Imagine the Dems gaining a few new seats in the Senate. Unless Begich and at least a few other pro-gun Dems remain, they'll have enough to override the filibuster and ramrod through whatever they want. Guys like Begich are a critical barrier to that. And while it would be great to get rid of Reid and keep the Dems in permanent minority, these things have been moving in cycles for 200 years now. Remember when it was the Republicans dominating the Senate and eyeing the Nuclear Option a few years ago? We have to think for the long term, and that means friends in both parties.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page