Don't ask your Reps to defend 2A ........

[scooter123]

I understand how you feel, but now is not the time, the white house has unleashed the full fury of the anti gun hordes, we will be extremely lucky if we survive the next four years without being overrun with new laws. we can ill afford to alienate the Senators and congressman we need to stand against them, by demanding they waste time and energy with bills that we know will go nowhere, and would surely be vetoed if they did make it through both houses.
for now we must defend what we have. and let the elected officials who represent our districts know we will support them if they support our rights.

I don't disagree that this is a poor time to try and promote any pro gun legislation. However, I also believe that it is a time when we need to start taking the offense in some respects. Diane Feinstein and her cohorts all took an Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution and that oath applies to the entire document, not just the parts they are all warm and fuzzy over. Under the Law, any elected official who fails to comply with their Oath of Office commits the crime of Perjury. Frankly I think that some our Representatives should point this out in an open session of the Senate and Congress and start discussions about the possibility of Impeachment. In simple terms Frau Feinstein needs to be reminded that should she cross the line too far the resulting backlash will have a direct effect on her highness.

Note, I am well aware that doing this will likely put Frau Feinstein into a foaming at the mouth rage. I consider that a good thing, because it is a near guarantee that she will go way way over the line and make some statements so damaging that it actually results in her being charged with a violation of her oath of office and her impeachment. In plain and simple terms I think that a good Defense is a Good Offense and part of that Offense should be to anger some of the super liberals so much that they actually reveal their true long term intents.

 

[magsherman]

Why are we always "defending the second amendment" instead of promoting it? Without it we have nothing. I re-joined the NRA yesterday and I'm just gettin' started!

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Although I agree less government is a good thing, I'm having trouble connecting the dots between less government and repealed gun laws ....... especially if you can't use elected officials to enter bills to accomplish that.
Can you please enlighten me on the direct connection between less government and automatic anti-gun law repeals, and point out some success stories on that front that were not the result of bills being passed?

Can't use elected officials? Automatic anti-gun law repeals?

What are you talking about?

 

[flyer91]

Here's Senator Rand Paul's take on the executive orders.
Rand Paul pledges to 'nullify' President Obama's executive orders - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com
And Senator Mitch McConnell says he will do everything in his power to stop any anti gun legislation.

Once again the guys first to act ( Obama's 23) are on the offense and Paul/McConnell play defense while Fienstine introduces new bills that our pro-gun repesentatives waited on so they could plan their defense.
We need them to get out there and introduce our own pro-gun bills and have the other side play defense.
Or we can just do as some of you seem to think is working, or for some reason 'will' work, and although the opposition will not get all they ask for, it is they that will make further inroad to their cause.
I can't believe some of you actually think defense is going to get us back anthing, or even maintain the pre-Sandy Hook status.
You guys need to wake up and comprehend the cards we truely have to play with, and force a change in the game by DEMANDING our elected reps go on offense or we will end up like Australia.

Gun Control - Guns banned in Australia and Violent Crime went UP! - YouTube

If this sounds familiar to you, and sounds indicative of our politicians on both sides of the isle, then get busy telling them what you want .......... or they are fired.
Don't be shy, or wait for some miracal of "smaller government" or a continued defensive posture.
Tell them to start an offensive program of introducing bills that will bring about what you want or you will campaign for your parties offering of anyone that 'will' do it, to take their seat.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I can't believe some of you actually think defense is going to get us back anthing, or even maintain the pre-Sandy Hook status.
You guys need to wake up and comprehend the cards we truely have to play with, and force a change in the game by DEMANDING our elected reps go on offense or we will end up like Australia.

I think you are misunderstanding.

Of course there's pro-gun offense. How do you think over the past 25 years Shall Issue has swept across the nation? Take a look at the animated map to get a better understanding of how far we have come 1986-present. It's truly impressive. Perhaps some people have forgot what it used to be like. Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Being somewhat of a purist on the subject, I still object to the notion of requiring a license. However, the move has been significant and in the right direction. These reforms were largely the result of grasssroot efforts and working with special interest groups like the NRA.

Without this dramatic shift to Shall Issue, I think it quite unlikely that President Obama would have signed legislation making it legal to carry in national parks.

Sweeping reform across states, Fed action to legalize carry in national parks. That's one example of how you connect the dots. I'd like to see more states join Tenn and a handful of others in passing the Firearms Freedom Act. Aside from the legalities that are not particularly in our favor, if there was a similar sweep across the nation then I believe it would give our friends in Congress a lot more support to push back on federal regulations.

These are the people who grow up and fight for our 2A rights. No government mandate required here.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[smokey]

You guys need to wake up and comprehend the cards we truely have to play with, and force a change in the game by DEMANDING our elected reps go on offense or we will end up like Australia.

I do understand, and the reality is Obama controls the white house, and his Democrats control the senate, the only thing standing in his way is a Republican controled house and a few Democrats that support the Second under normal circumstances, i can only imagine the pressure they must be under right now from the white house and Democrat peers in the senate.
To start making enemies of our pro 2nd amendment supporters by making demands now, would not be wise.
i would love a strong offense, but sometimes defense is all you got.

 

[Travis15R]

I called one of my senators this morning and left a msg after reading this stating how everyone in office has taken an oath to defend the constitution and all of these laws they are making or trying to pass are infringing on the 2A. I also made the point that they need to take a stand and its time to stop playing catch up and that they need to call out ones like DIFI and tell them on the senate floor that they have taken an oath and they are now breaking it in pursuit of personal agenda's. I used all the allotted recording time I was allowed.

 

[flyer91]

I think you are misunderstanding.

Of course there's pro-gun offense. How do you think over the past 25 years Shall Issue has swept across the nation? Take a look at the animated map to get a better understanding of how far we have come 1986-present. It's truly impressive. Perhaps some people have forgot what it used to be like. Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Being somewhat of a purist on the subject, I still object to the notion of requiring a license. However, the move has been significant and in the right direction. These reforms were largely the result of grasssroot efforts and working with special interest groups like the NRA.

Without this dramatic shift to Shall Issue, I think it quite unlikely that President Obama would have signed legislation making it legal to carry in national parks.

Sweeping reform across states, Fed action to legalize carry in national parks. That's one example of how you connect the dots. I'd like to see more states join Tenn and a handful of others in passing the Firearms Freedom Act. Aside from the legalities that are not particularly in our favor, if there was a similar sweep across the nation then I believe it would give our friends in Congress a lot more support to push back on federal regulations.

These are the people who grow up and fight for our 2A rights. No government mandate required here.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Stay that course Phil and see what it gets you.
To even suggest that we have advanced pro-gun rights from the 1934 inception of NFA is just not correct.

But ....... my main point is for people to use the links I posted for an 'easy' way to (hopefully) let their reps know that we are behind them getting more aggressively pro gun.
But if that's too strong for some. then just use the links to express some sort of a pro-gun stance is required for your continued support of them.
Politicians are thick skinned and will aggressively go in a directions that matches the the number of people that tell them what they want.
Proof of that is the number of people over time DEMANDING the government take away their 2A rights.
The government has, is, and will continue to do as the people the people tell them ..... because they like their jobs and it's all about the votes/support they will recieve the next election cycle ............... and nothing more.

Your way is just not working no matter how small a snap shot you take of the real decline in gun owner rights.
Do you really think that by taking our right to carry any gun we want (in the early 1900's) away from us, then define a system that says we have to meet some criteria to get a CCW, and then give us back the right to carry in parks ........... is in any way an advancement of the second??
You need to really look back and see what a defensive posture has got us.
I suspect that you are actually 'much' smarter than what you are saying here, because if I read you right, you are saying that we have 'more' gun rights after the 1968 re-write of the NFA, and that is just not correct.

WRT to O's re-election: The fact is .......... that if enough people has told O to get re-elected he would need to have a day that we dyed a trukey purple, tie a rock to it's leg, and throw it in a body of water ...... we would have the national "Drowned a Purple Turkey in the Lake Day".
His re-election tactics prove that.

 

[venomballistics]

Stay that course Phil and see what it gets you.
To even suggest that we have advanced pro-gun rights from the 1934 inception of NFA is just not correct.

But ....... my main point is for people to use the links I posted for an 'easy' way to (hopefully) let their reps know that we are behind them getting more aggressively pro gun.
But if that's too strong for some. then just use the links to express some sort of a pro-gun stance is required for your continued support of them.
Politicians are thick skinned and will aggressively go in a directions that matches the the number of people that tell them what they want.
Proof of that is the number of people over time DEMANDING the government take away their 2A rights.
The government has, is, and will continue to do as the people the people tell them .... because they like their jobs and it's all about the votes/support they will recieve the next election cycle ............... and nothing more.

Your way is just not working no matter how small a snap shot you take of the real decline in gun owner rights.
Do you really think that by taking our right to carry any gun we want (in the early 1900's) away from us, then define a system that says we have to meet some criteria to get a CCW, and then give us back the right to carry in parks ........... is in any way an advancement of the second??
You need to really look back and see what a defensive posture has got us.
I suspect that you are actually 'much' smarter than what you are saying here.

The fact is .......... that if enough people has told O to get re-ellected he would need to have a day that we died a trukey purple, tie a rock to it's leg, and throw it in a body of water ...... we would have the national "Drowned a Purple Turkey in the Lake Day".
His re-ellection tactics prove that.

You miss a few details.
Politicians the likes of Harry Reid, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstien, Nancy Pelosi, and many others, could care less what we say. They operate on the assumption that the positions they hold allow them to do what THEY want.
They haven't passed a budget in four years .. they don't want to do this. but they managed to draft up and introduce gun control bills in a matter of days.
I'm certain we'd all like to see a budget properly set rather than hear threats of a fiscal cliff every other day and a solid 80% of the population is pro gun.
by finding our strong pro 2A representatives and putting a bug in their ears to repeal gun control laws past and present, it may come to pass that such a movement gains legs. It could just be as simple as they haven't thought of it ... by all means .. suggest.
even though it may get vetoed and cause capitol hill to break out in hives to little avail. it'll preoccupy them with frustration.

Now you say the anti gun pablum they are working on is a result of pressure from the people .... Don't get this wrong.
We never pressed them to this. the media did.
Look at their conduct through Sandy Hook.
The media made the strongest attempt in their history to speak wrongly on our behalf.
If I were isolated from all of society and tuned into CNN I might have thought the will of the people was to ban guns for all the protest voiced by CNN.
If our reps hear ANYTHING and are willing to act in accordance with it, CNN is the first voice, the loudest voice and most prominent opinion they hear.

 

[les strat]

Sadly, I don't think it can be undone, minus a real revolution.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[venomballistics]

Sadly, I don't think it can be undone, minus a real revolution.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

sadly .... I feel your right.
I won't get into the tinfoil hat chatter floating around lately, but if even half of it is true, whole or in part, the government knows it too, and has made ready for a revolt.

perhaps what we read and write here could be interpreted as the infant stages of revolt. folks need to get ticked off enough and disgusted enough before they take up arms. That might be where we are now.

Obamas 23 EO's could have resulted in a crackpot making an armed run on DC, which would likely have resulted in martial law... it could still happen.
while I cannot condone it ... I'm not foolish enough to deny it as possible even as we speak.
things are the most tense I've ever lived to see it.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Flyer,

Not sure what post you're reading, but it's definitely not the post of mine you included in your reply.

When you find a candidate(s) that publicly supports -- "mandatory that all able bodied citizens be required to maintain a government issued civilian version of the current military standard issue firearms and receive training on how to use them. Conscientious (or whatever) objectors could/would be excepted, but would need to pay an annual "tax" to pay for the hardware and training for the rest of us to protect their freedoms for them." -- I'd be interested to know who they are. Such a litmus test isn't likely to result in picking many winners, nor move forward gun rights. Such positions would only weaken the cause.

As far as the NFA... I think we could actually win a debate in Washington on silencers if we can create more demand for them. More states have made silencers legal to own as well as use for hunting. I think it was just last year that Texas and Arizona hunters can now legally use silencers. With more folks using them, there will be more folks who care about repealing at least parts of the NFA. Right now there isn't a great deal of support so the NRA nor Washington really cares, but states are moving forward. I have one stamp and am waiting on another. You?

 

[Rogue686]

I understand how you feel, but now is not the time, the white house has unleashed the full fury of the anti gun hordes, we will be extremely lucky if we survive the next four years without being overrun with new laws. we can ill afford to alienate the Senators and congressman we need to stand against them, by demanding they waste time and energy with bills that we know will go nowhere, and would surely be vetoed if they did make it through both houses.
for now we must defend what we have. and let the elected officials who represent our districts know we will support them if they support our rights.

There is no better time. We could be in for the fight of the past two decades regarding the 2A. We must play defense AND offense.

If we play defense all the time and concede an inch, the antis will take two miles. Look at how much we have compromised since 1934, and every time something comes up we compromise more, like with the GCA of '68, FOPA in '86, Brady Bill in '93, and the AWB of '94. We can see what has happened when we play defense.

Just my .02 FRNs...

Rogue

"molṑn labé"

 

[flyer91]

I'd really like to get a can but I'm in Commiefornia and even with the $200 stamp we can't have one.
But on the plus side ...... at the county level many Sheriffs here are just signing off on CCWs with nothing other than "I want it so I can protect myself" reason.
I'm in Madera county, and it's fairly easy to get the CCW.
In our neighboring county of Fresno, Sheriff Margret Mimms has openly stated that they do not have the resources to protect the citizens of Fresno County and has made it even easier and faster by signing off on CCWs for any honest/non-felon citizens.
These same Sheriffs are also joining a growing group of sheriffs across the country by openly stating they will not enforce 'any' new laws that they feel infringe upon our 2'nd amendment rights.
So ........... that's certainly better then a poke in the eye with a blunt stick!

They are much less isolated/insulated than the state, and certainly than the federal level of government, from the mood/will of the people that vote them into office, and that has more "play" in their being re-elected, as well as how much influence it has on their decisions and the speed of their responses to the their constituents.

But admittedly, they also live here ....... as do their friends and families, so I suspect that probably makes for a more pragmatic set of values that translate to a better environment for gun owners than what we get form the state and D.C.

 

[boat770]

Frau Feinstein needs to be reminded that should she cross the line too far the resulting backlash will have a direct effect on her highness. .

I think she has crossed the line too far already, sad thing is not one of our supposed Representatives has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to her or her rediculous rantings.

 

[smokey]

I'd really like to get a can but I'm in Commiefornia and even with the $200 stamp we can't have one.And once again ....... how's that approach working out for you?
What did your elected officials say when you asked them to defend against/repeal the 23 executive actions that O took last week?

California? Seriously? your'e from california and lecturing everyone on how to deal with our elected officials.
well what did Boxer and Feinstein say to your demands?
i wouldn't be surprised if they had you arressted for harrasment or even terroristic threatening.
boat770,feinstein crossed the line back in 94 with the first ban, unfortunatly the liberal large city sheeple outnumber the free thinking pro second amendment people such as flyer91, which is sad, i would like to see enough pro second amendment voters in Cali to throw Feinstein and Boxer both out. but it isn't going to happen.

 

[10ring]

Here's what I sent .......

...I will no longer support you if you do not start to introduce multiple, aggressive, and extremely "pro-gun" bills into legislation.

I wish to make it clear that I will no longer support you for re-election if you only take a defensive stance on liberal anti-gun legislative proposals, and expect you to be totally committed to talking an immediate and actively offensive stance on gun issues by introducing new and multiple pro-gun bills.

If you don't take such a position, I will actively support any person that your party offers as replacement for your seat in the next election cycle.

Just a thought... There are people out there demanding legislators "do something" to "end the violence" and threatening to replace those who won't support gun control.

Your letter tells your representative that unless he/she introduces a pro-gun bill, he/she has lost your support, no matter how they stand on the issue of gun control generally.

There are those legislators who want gun control. They will laugh at such a letter, knowing they don't have your support anyway. There are those who are pro-gun but for any number of reasons will not or cannot propose such laws. Do you really want to tell them that they no longer have your support at all?

I mean, why not thank them for their previous positions (if appropriate), and pledge your continued support and encourage them to do more and leave the harsh language and threats for those who oppose your views.

You know all the old sayings about catching more flies with honey than vinegar and so on?

And I know I am sticking my neck out by saying this here, but do you really think you will make any headway with any politician by insisting they propose laws such as making gun ownership mandatory? I think you risk losing any credibility and doing more harm than good.

 

[10ring]

Flyer,


As far as the NFA... I think we could actually win a debate in Washington on silencers if we can create more demand for them. More states have made silencers legal to own as well as use for hunting. I think it was just last year that Texas and Arizona hunters can now legally use silencers. With more folks using them, there will be more folks who care about repealing at least parts of the NFA. Right now there isn't a great deal of support so the NRA nor Washington really cares, but states are moving forward. I have one stamp and am waiting on another. You?

I agree on the "silencers." Even the UK views (viewed?) then as a health and public benefit and permitted them quite freely. Unfortunately, I don't know that we will make any progress on this right now. Too many of the gun-phobics have gotten themselves worked up and feeling empowered and they would come up with all kinds of BS about stealth attacks on schools and such.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I agree on the "silencers." Even the UK views (viewed?) then as a health and public benefit and permitted them quite freely. Unfortunately, I don't know that we will make any progress on this right now. Too many of the gun-phobics have gotten themselves worked up and feeling empowered and they would come up with all kinds of BS about stealth attacks on schools and such.

There's a stigma that still exists. I shoot during the week at the rifle club so I meet quite a lot of older fellas. It's not uncommon for me to be shooting suppressed when an elderly club member arrives. They will often ask hesitantly 'Is that legal?'. I say sure... we'll talk for a while and I'll ask if he wants to try it out. 100% of the time there is a HUGE smile, and most often "I got to get one of them'.

The NRA has been cold on silencers since forever, but that's changing a little. Kevin Brittingham of AAC was talking about the 2000 NRA annual show in Charlotte NC. About a week before the show the NRA called Kevin and said they would not allow AAC to set up because they didn't want the media focusing on their table and putting guns in a bad light. Fast forward 10 years... Kevin says that the NRA set up a table at the AAC Silencer Shoot. Kevin now says that the NRA is willing to help create awareness and promote silencers.

Here's a page from NRA web site. I particularly like the last paragraph.

"It's time that policymakers--legislators, wildlife commissioners and gun club board members--move to eliminate the laws, regulations and policies that discourage or prohibit suppressor use. In addition to decreasing the incidents of permanent hearing loss, it will help keep the shooting sports alive and well by decreasing the calls to close shooting areas and hunting lands. Suppressors may not be for everyone, but that's the best aspect of freedom--it is your choice."

I don't think the NRA really much cares or is putting effort into it, but it's moving in the right direction.

NRA-ILA | Suppressors-Good for Our Hearing

 

[flyer91]

California? Seriously? your'e from california and lecturing everyone on how to deal with our elected officials.
well what did Boxer and Feinstein say to your demands?
i wouldn't be surprised if they had you arressted for harrasment or even terroristic threatening.
boat770,feinstein crossed the line back in 94 with the first ban, unfortunatly the liberal large city sheeple outnumber the free thinking pro second amendment people such as flyer91, which is sad, i would like to see enough pro second amendment voters in Cali to throw Feinstein and Boxer both out. but it isn't going to happen.

Actually I haven't meant to lecture anyone, I provided some links that make it easy for prople to communicate with their legislators, and asked for them to speak out (and do it aggresively) because the status quo isn't getting it done.

Also there are a 'lot' of us in California that are of the same mind as all gun-owners, and share your strong oppinion of the unholy trinity (Feinstien,Boxer and Pelosi).

on edit ..... I would add ....... who better to ring the warning bell than the greatest victims of anti-gun, anti-2a forces, that this country has (so far) seen ??? ...... because we were not aggressive enough.

And we are really in for it now because our state legislation is a democrat super majority in both the senate 'and' the assembly.

What does that mean for the other 49, well .......... we are certainly just 'time alone' ahead of you other 49.
There is talk of making it mandatory to have liability insurance if you own firearms, going beyond our "bullet button work-around and even more restrictive gun laws out here.

I responded with a post here that you might want to read.
It's about just how sneaky they can be ........ using things like a proposal (that became law) to help gun owners by making sure anybody buying a gun in Cali doesn't get some junk gun that might blow up in their face ...... see:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-amendment-forum/260480-so-anyone-really-worried-our-guns-could-one-day-illegal.html#post136624064

Look left and they will attack you "and win" from the right.
Take a "don't rock the boat" defensive or even mildly agressive apraoch and you will be just like us in Cali ...... and probably like those ex-gun owners in Oz ..... that are also trying to tell the US to wake up.

Look more broadly, don't condesend against the people that are living your probable gun future, as our reality right now.
Maybe you can learn from our mistakes, heed our warnings, and then take your own stand ...... and PLEASE use the "easy to use links I posted" and DO SOMETHING more important than winning a "thread-argument" with me!

If that's the only thing you wish to take from my 'lecturing' thread here, then I'm a happy camper!!

I'll graciuosly accept the 16 likes on my original post (to date) as people that are willing to use the links 'as they wish' and l'll gratefully go ......