Punching Back Twice as Hard

By Tman

The much-anticipated Obama/Biden presser this morning—which delivered a suppressor-like effect on the floor of the SHOT show—was more of a squib than the full-frontal assault on our Second Amendment rights that many had feared. It was classic Obama, slathering on the ideological lard aided by some stupid props. This time, a bunch of kids.  But ultimately it was another lead-from-behind effort from the president that, when all is said and done, dropped an enormous turd onto Democrats and RINOs in the House and Senate. That’s where all of you good folks come into the picture . . .

First, about those “executive orders” BHO issued. It’s a mix and match mashup of the mildly OK, the utterly unenforceable, the mind-dumbingly redundant with a soupcon of the the politically obtuse sprinkled in. Case in point: #9 (aka requiring crime gun tracing by the feds) . . . can you say, “Fast and Furious.” I knew that you could. Unless Obama has something more up his sleeve, this was largely a means to puff out his chest feathers so he can get back to the matters he cares about most. And the VP can, thankfully, get back to his day job, too.

Now, about that AWB and those “high capacity magazine clips,” as the president so knowledgeably refers to them. Despite all the gun grabber tub thumping, the political reality is already starting to seep in, even among legislative wunderkind like Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy and  Harry “A-Rated” Reid.  The chances of a House bill making it out of committee are, well, as Mr. Farago might put it, about as good as Tereza Otahailikova prancing the aisles of the SHOT show in nothing but a Dianne Feinstein mask. The odds are definitely stronger for a Senate bill making it to a floor vote, but Reid may arrange that just to create an opportunity for political grandstanding by some senators preening for their secure base constituents.

And that’s where you come in.

A whole bunch of Congress’ Finest would like nothing more than to see the whole thing go away very, very quickly. So let’s give them a helping hand. If you haven’t already, put the heat on your representative and senators – don’t just rely on the NRA and other pro-gun groups to do the heavy lifting. Make sure they know it will be politically expensive for them to come out in support of any kind of gun control. The magazine-capacity issue will likely pop up as a “reasonable compromise.” Make sure you let your reps know how idiotic that really is—and that you’ll remember, remember on the 4th of November.

For simple instructions on how to contact your reps as well as cut-and-paste copy that you’re free to use, see this earlier article.  It only takes a few minutes. And it’s fun, too!

122 Responses to Punching Back Twice as Hard

  1. avatarduke nukem says:

    i seriously doubt congress is gonna pass any of the proposed attacks on the 2A that this idiot came up with….

    • avatarEvan says:

      Never underestimate your enemies, even if they are Really REALLY stupid.

      • avatarduke nukem says:

        lmao, but still congress is the last resort and the majority of senators are against any awb and high cap ban. but the gun control loophole thing?? thats another area which it could pass

        • avatarJacknine says:

          The government not interjecting itself into transactions between private individuals on anything is a little more than a “loophole”, its a pretty damn big principle.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Jacknine: No, its a loophole. You can’t sell drugs just because they are your private property. You can’t sell alcohol to minors. You can’t sell nuclear material to terrorist nations, and you shouldn’t be allowed to sell a gun to anyone you meet on the street.

          Guns are different from popcorn, not just by their nature, but by law.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Bullshit. None of those things you named are the same, and you know it. Drugs are controlled substances. You can’t sell alcohol to minors, but selling guns to minors is also illegal. You can’t sell nuclear material to terrorist nations. You can’t sell nuclear material to anyone. Bullshit examples for a bullshit argument.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Matt: The whole point is that those are regulated transactions. The government is not a dictatorship just because you can’t sell guns and alcohol to minors.

        • avatarSilver says:

          Dave:

          Drugs and nuclear material also aren’t protected by the Constitution. You know, that old piece of paper enumerating all the reasons people like you can’t oppress and control your neighbors to suit your sociopathic whims.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: Sometimes there is just no way to make a point, is there? The point I was making is that drugs are not protected by the Constitution. Private property is, but drugs are not.

          Guns are protected by the Constitution, but not the unregulated sale of guns. You can keep an bear arms, but you can’t sell them to minors. I don’t care if it is your private property or not, the Constitution does not give you the right to sell it in an illegal manner.

          Sometimes I feel like I need to cut the entire text of a Constitutional Law book to explain to people that the Constitution does not mean whatever you think it means. There is a system for determining what it does and does not say.

          And that system is not to refer to the comments section of a pro-gun blog.

        • avatarSilver says:

          Who’s talking about selling to minors? The institution of any kind of regulation for private sales (adult to adult) is grounds for a slippery slope to a de facto ban based on any criteria the government decides. I fail to see what’s so hard to understand about that.

          Further, something being illegal or legal does not equate to constitutional or unconstitutional. Slavery was legal at a time after all.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: Either there is a slippery slope or there is not. If the government can regulate a transaction by saying: “You can’t sell to minors”, then the government can also say: “You can’t sell to felons.”

          There is no rational reason why one limitation is part of a slippery slope, while the other is not.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          So selling to non felons without a background check is still legal, got it!

      • avatarAnmut says:

        Stupid people scare me the most.

      • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

        The stupid enemies are the most dangerous.

  2. avatarAir Force TSgt says:

    Maybe it’s just the messed up way my mind works… but I kind of hope they keep pushing the AWB ( even though it can’t pass ) just long enough to fill all those AR back orders and put an F-ing AR in as many homes as we can, along with as many p-mags Magpul can crank out. Let’s make more people “stakeholders”,keep buying those AR’s!

    • avatark4R-15 says:

      I concur with your desire to keep growing ownership sir…. and I can’t repeat this often enough– if everyone who purchased a gun other past 12 months (especially the panicky sort who overpaid for theirs in the past 2 months) contacted their elected officials at times like this Congress would have all the evidence they need to move on to other legislative topics…. And we could all find ammo at our local purveyor of choice.

      • avatarduke nukem says:

        indeed. theres a lot of price gouging going on and some of us can barely afford the ammo let alone a new ar

    • avatarAnmut says:

      Yeah but I want to go back to SHOOTING my firearms, not just staring at them in the safe. I can’t even find any damn BRASS to reload .223! It’s enough already – I want to go to the range!

    • avatarHoustorm says:

      If true, this seems to give some hope:

      http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4576

    • avatarBlehtastic says:

      I wish that well-heeled gun stores with quantity wholesale discounts would start requiring NRA membership before sellong a gun to a customer. If you can fill out a 4473 without getting visibly pissed off, you can fill out an NRA membership form of 10 fields or less.

      You know what they say here in Ohio, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

  3. avatarRalph says:

    People who think that this bill (or collection of bills) can’t pass are as insane as the people who said that Obama is a good guy.

    These new insults to the Constitution will pass the Senate easy, EASY, if Reid lets it come up for a vote. I think he will, since he’s the President’s buttb0y.

    Our battle is in the House, and we need Boehner to keep this bill away from the floor. The Republican majority is razor slim, and northeast me-too Republicans are going to switch sides and vote our rights right down the porcelain convenience. Just like the Republicans did in New York.

    The battle, then, comes down to blue dog Democrats — who I trust as much as nest of rattlesnakes in a sh!thouse. If I had to assess the odds right now, it would be 60-40 against us. And with the media tub-thumping against freedom every minute of every day, the odds aren’t going to get any better.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      Considering gun control came about to keep newly freed blacks in the South from arming themselves after the Civil War, I think it’s ironic how gun control/civilian disarmament is concentrated on areas that were on the Union side.

      • avatarIhatehillbillies says:

        lol another objectively false lie from the racist hillbilly guntrash

        hey how about you hillbilly guntrash exhibit some trigger control– don’t bang your sister wives lol!

        inbreeding is not good for society

        • avatarSilver says:

          lol did anyone else read this ^ in the voice of Khan from King of the Hill?

          Funny stuff.

        • avatarAaronW says:

          Have anything constructive to say, or are you stuck in insult mode?

        • avatarmark~ says:

          Projection and displacement make for some interesting characters but this one is absolutely adorable.

        • avatarBHirsh says:

          Ihatehillbillies – Sorry, but you must first display your “Trolls ‘R’ Us” card before posting such inanity here.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Hey look, a troll speaking chimpanzee!

        • avatarWill says:

          @ ihatehillbillies

          This coming from someone who’s screen-name drips with hatred, bias, and prejudice. Good luck having any of us take you even remotely seriously.

          Obviously [FLAME CENSORED BY POSTER]!!!

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Today is called the Opening Kickoff which was downed in the end zone. The ball is now in our hands at the 25. We still got 4 full quarters left. Obama has never lost. I do not share the confidence of many in our locker room.

    • avatarJim R says:

      NEVER let yourself think that Congress can’t or won’t do something you don’t like. They will screw you over if given half a chance.

      DO NOT LET OFF. Keep the pressure on your Congresscritters and be damn sure to tell them that if they support any of this gun control crap, that you’ll be funding their opposition in 2014 or whenever they happen to be up for re-election.

      THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      For every Eastern Coast Republican who might vote for the ban there is at least one Western/Southern Democrat who will vote against it. No bill can pass. And the truth is, with exception of a few anti-gun fanatics, the Democratic leadership does not want an AWB. They all remember what happened in 1994 and don’t want a repeat performance. They think they can use class warfare to take back the House and don’t want gun rights getting in the way. The House will kill this bill.

      The real problem is the 2014 midterms. I have said before all you people who whine about so-called RINOs better get off your butts and get to the polls to make sure the House stays pro-Second Amendment. That also goes for you foolish Democrats who think the Prez things guns are cool. Vote (R) and ensure your gun-rights.

    • avatarJeff M says:

      A concealed carry bill was overwhelmingly voted for in the house 272-154, here:
      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/houses-passes-bill-making-concealed-carry-permits-valid-across-state-lines/

      This gives me a pretty good idea what the landscape looks like. These reps who voted for the bill are likely to vote down any gun control.

      This isn’t the sort of thing they’d exhaust all of their political capital on. This was a random unpredictable event, very bad timing for democrats in fact, the first few months aren’t going very well for them and now they’ve got these executive actions they can fall back on.

      I’d put it more like 80/20 for us, there’d have to be another big shooting or something for the odds to change, it could happen later in the term if there is another shooting or something.

  4. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I’d buy a ticket to that show.

    You know the one I mean.

  5. avatarDale says:

    I kind of feel like we’ve had a bit of a victory because I don’t think the plans announced today were his original “script” as it were. My gut level feeling is that some “fast and furious” rewriting happened over the past few days. [Not that the managed media will ever admit to that]

  6. avatarShane says:

    “Tereza Otahailikova prancing the aisles of the SHOT show in nothing but a Dianne Feinstein mask.” I need some mind bleach just thinking about that. Yikes.

  7. avatarAruges says:

    Looks like the Senate is going to gut the filibuster… Di Fi’s bill will probably pass…
    http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/16/attn-gun-owners-mcconnell-reid-cutting-deal-on-the-filibuster/

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      what? its been expected in all the newspolls that comrade feinstein’s bill will fail!!! this is just bullcrap

    • avatartdiinva says:

      You do know that all legislation must pass both Houses of Congress right? Her bill is DOA in the House.

  8. avatarWyndage says:

    I wrote my rep (again) immediately after Obama’s speech ended. I’ll be contacting my senators (again) shortly.

  9. avatarstormchaser says:

    We need to stay on this, contact your reps at least once per week.
    Once we defeat this we can go on the offensive with shall issue and constitutional carry.

    • avatarJoe says:

      No, ban NFA, no more machine gun registry and the right to conceal carry without requiring a permit… That should be our end goal

      • avatarAnmut says:

        It’s like what the sheriff of Jackson County, KY said, “If you need a grenade to protect your family, then you need a grenade.”

        I can’t imagine a whole lot of houses would get broken into if the threat of a full auto barrage of lead was possible on the other side…

      • avatarAaronW says:

        The anti-gun crowd is far more unified than we are – “no guns for anyone” is their endgame.
        We pro-RKBA folk never had an “endgame” other than simply fighting off new restrictions.

  10. avatarLance says:

    Just like I said before call your Reps and Senators say kill the ban!!

  11. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    From Tam the Inimitable;

    http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2013/01/i-dont-get-it.html

    I don’t get it…
    Wayne LaPierre goes and says we need to worry about crazy people with guns, fund better school security, and enforce existing laws & prosecute the people who break them, and the Anti-Gun crowd mocks him as a disconnected pro-gun zealot tool of the firearms industry.

    Barack Obama commissions a study group headed by the vice president, and then holds a press conference stating that we need to worry about crazy people with guns, fund better school security, and enforce existing laws & prosecute the people who break them, and the Anti-Gun crowd acclaims him as a charismatic visionary taking a bold and sweeping step forward.

    Uh… run that by me again?

    • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

      It’s all about presentation, LaPierre has the charisma of a Romney… and we saw how that turned out. They don’t care about facts and reality, we just need to tug at the heart strings…and put on a good show. Hate to say it but we need a new spokesman.

    • avatarWill says:

      It always sounds better coming from one of their own. As LaPierre is NOT one of them, and never will be (that I know of), whatever he says will always be crap, at least until the idea “originates” from one of their own. THEN, and only then, will it be something worthy to go after. After all, LaPierre represents their most hated political enemy.

  12. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    Also, here’s an encouraging bit of polling data regarding gun ownership aspirations for high school and college age students, from American University, Washington, D.C.

    We are winning, stay in the fight, take a young person shooting.

    http://www.american.edu/media/news/20120114_Gun_Poll_High_School_College_Students.cfm

    BTW, the link to the study/poll was found over at Glenn Reynolds blog Instapundit.

  13. avatarJames1000 says:

    Would be interesting if they actually pose in writing the banning of “high capacity magazine clips.” Considering there is no such thing….

    • avatarWill says:

      They’d just create a definition, just like they did for “assault weapon.” they may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but they sure are cunning enough to still cut when you least expect.

  14. avatarensitu says:

    Rule #1
    Never Underestimate Your Enemy

    Remember these guys have shipped guns to America’s enemies and are complicit in the murders of American civilians and LEOs

  15. avatarDon says:

    Hey Dan, don’t forget this link to Ruger’s take action page that Nick posted this weekend.. Nick was right it is extremely fast and easy to use, give it a try…..I’ve been forwarding it to friends and fence sitters all week

    http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/

  16. avatarsunnyroberto says:

    Question,
    I live in New Jersey, and my two senators, democrats Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez, will vote for any anti-gun legislation 0bama throws out there while complaining that he isn’t going far enough. These two whackos are beyond hope. Is it worth it to contact them, or am I just wasting my time??

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Hit ‘em anyway. Hit your House reps hard, because if legislation gets out of committee in the Senate, it will likely pass, and the Republican controlled House will be the battleground.

      Majority/minority leaders, even if they’re not from your state, are also good people to hit.

    • avatarDaniel says:

      The worst thing you can do is not make yourself heard. Participate in the process, and don’t complain about the results if you do not.

    • avatarPascal says:

      You vote, you have friends that vote. It is a game of numbers. You need to use your voice.

      I am in no better position in CT, 100% democrates but that has not stopped me from using physical mail, email and phone them.

      If you call, here is a trick to maybe get someone to talk to you.

      1) Just leave a message that you want to talk to them about a specific bill — give the number and nothing else

      2) Or, call and tell the person taking a message that you saw so and so on TV or in person talking about that you had shaken hands and he asked you to call and talk some more. They talk to so many they will not remember but most likely will call back

      If possible, user personal stories of how you will be impacted. Do not bother with the 2nd amendment the bill of rights etc. They don’t care I assure you.

      For example, you great grandfather has passed down the sport of shooting or if true, you had a home invasion or had been mugged. Whatever you do don’t lie on the story. Tell them how you have done nothing wrong but do to no fault of your own, he wants to make you a criminal for owning some some metal and plastic and they cannot say they support hunters and sportsman and then take away the tools they choose to exercise and compete in those sports. I also like to remind them that the supreme court has ruled the police have no duty to respond and name the cases (I love the surprise by those that do not know about that). Then ask them to guarantee your safety, and if they cannot, why you cannot have the option to defend yourself.

      Also be clear that they may not like what you believe in, they are suppose to represent everyone not just the ones that support their party. Their obligation is to everyone — I have heard a lot of sighs on the other side of the phone with that last one.

      Are there politician who do not give a crap what you have to say, yep! Nothing you can do, give them your two cents and move on.

    • avatarDon says:

      I just wrote to my senators……Feinstein and Boxer…..Not much hope I convinced them with my facts but I still think they need to hear it.

    • avatarTom Hobbs says:

      Sunnyroberto, yea, it may be a big waste of time,BUT do it. Take the time. Get your friends, coworkers, neighbors, whom ever you can to write call what ever you can. These guys must be reminded who pays the light bill.

  17. avatarSteve says:

    People seem to be under the impression that the executive order threat is over.

    It’s not.

    He can do it, anytime he wants. Lets say a gun ban fails in congress. You STILL have a gun hating POTUS to deal with.

    Let’s say he does nothing until after the 2014 midterms. Even on the last day of his term in office as a parting “EFF you” to the firearms community.

    If you rest now, you lose. Like it or not, this is going to require constant vigilance until he is gone, and a suitable replacement is in office.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      I haven’t said it, because we still need to get ourselves pumped up for the fight in congress, but his past MO (remember the dream act?) has been to blame the GOP for gridlock if he can, say it’s too important to wait, and act by EO. He’s gotten away with is so far, and though the water level is rising, the pot hasn’t boiled over yet.

      I fear he may be arrogant enough (and misunderstand America enough) to actually do it. Remember that he isn’t one of us. It ultimately doesn’t matter where he was born, according to his own story he spent his formative years eating dog in Indonesia while we were watching baseball and eating hot dogs. I really don’t think he gets it.

      Worse yet, there is a small part of me that fears he may actually WANT the pot to boil over. Regardless, we should be ready to fight him in the courts. We have to hope that doing that, along with a policy of peaceful non-compliance, will win the day.

  18. avatarmacgearailt says:

    We should all Stand To. Stand to: the act of preparing for the early morning assault on your position. Maximum awareness and preparation for what is coming.He’s not done withn us and we should be prepared to respond. I don’t buy the feint,BHO isn’t finished.

  19. avatarDon says:

    Quickest way to email all of your government officials:

    Email all of your Federal Officials with a personal message using a single form:
    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

    Email all of your State Officials with a personal message using a single form:
    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

  20. avatarIn Memphis says:

    “And the VP can, thankfully, get back to his day job, too.”

    I have a strong visual of Biden as Mayor Adam West from Family Guy

  21. avatarAaronINV says:

    You call kids, stupid props? The truth about guns huh? Do me and guns a favor and watch your authors.

    • avatarfoggy says:

      They were being used as stage dressing, if you can’t see that then you are just as much of a tool as you sound like.

  22. avatarSilver says:

    Here’s what’s going to happen:

    The AWB, the mag ban, it’s all going to pass. We live in a bizarro nation where the good, decent, and logical will always lose to the irrational and evil.

    After it passes, there will be plenty of complaining and moaning, but everyone will take it and get back to their reality TV, ipods, and meaningless drudgery lives. Tyranny will have won because we’ve been so conditioned to keep parroting “call your reps” without mustering the fortitude to continue defiance after all civil recourse has failed.

    And so it will be that one man (Lanza) managed to destroy a nation. We will no longer live in a country worthy of protection or admiration, but rather one that deserves scorn and misery for its failures. We’ll just be another dime a dozen tyranny taking up space in a world where freedom no longer exists and where life is no longer worth living for those who harbor independent souls.

    I pity those of you with children. How will you explain to them what freedom is like when they’ll never have the opportunity to know it themselves? How will you justify your inaction when the Constitution needed you the most? What will be your thoughts when you see that their only future in life is tax-slavery to a corrupt despot?

    Dark days ahead.

  23. So what I hear you saying is that criminal background checks are a bad thing?

    Or is it the “tougher penalties for gun trafficking” that you are opposed to?

    The only thing the assault weapon ban does is increase the price of certain guns. Is everyone convinced that the first step to tyranny is when the government makes gun manufacturers remove the pistol grip from their rifles?

    So is it the magazine limitation that has everyone in a frenzy? Large capacity magazines are a huge benefit to inexperienced gun owners and spree killers, because it saves them a few seconds of reloading time. Experienced gun owners (and people defending their home) are hardly inconvenienced at all by small magazines.

    Anyway, the proposals are likely to get a good review in Congress and in the courts. This is not a bunch of executive orders. He issued no executive order, which makes the claim of a “power grab” seem silly and stupid.

    Obama did issue a presidential memorandum effectively overturning a congressional ban on federal research into the cause of gun violence. This is an administrative tool that has been used by every President since Washington. If you are against this, then you are against research? Please.

    He also acted administratively to get health care providers, states and federal agencies to share more information with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is an effort to prevent gun sales to people with disqualifying criminal backgrounds or mental health issues. This is an action that is supported by the majority of Americans, including the majority of gun owners.

    Obama is not relying on executive orders any more than other recent presidents. His 147 orders over four years is roughly the same as George W. Bush, who issued 294 in eight years. And Bush did not have a hostile do-nothing Congress.

    Meanwhile, the NRA has hit a new low. The fact is, Obama is not opposed to armed guards in schools. This is what Obama opposes: the NRA’s position that putting more guns in schools is the only way to prevent mass shootings.

    The president wants to ban assault rifles, require background checks, and ban high-capacity ammunition. He does not want to confiscate guns, despite the NRA’s lunatic warnings to the contrary.

    There are fair arguments to be had over Obama’s proposals: Redefining the Second Amendment shouldn’t be done lightly. But to drag the president’s daughters into the issue, and to question their need for security, suggests that the NRA is slipping further into fringe territory.

    I always thought the NRA was despicable. But this new hatred-and-misinformation based advertisement takes the cake.

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      but whats the point of banning assault rifles and high cap mags??? theres NO reazon for it!!! the imbeciles we have as leaders are not dealing with the mental health issue!!!! none of the shooters wether it was columbine colorado or newton were right in their mind, some of them were paranoid or schizophrenic or bipolar and they had easy acces to weapons. Because of the mistakes of a few its not fair that a million+ good gun owners suffer. what i do agree on is the NRA propaganda. i hate the NRA, they dont represent gun owners, they rpresent gun companies

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Duke: The mental health aspect is a tough one. Mental health professionals are usually not good at predicting violence. Even if they were, most people with most mental illness are no more likely to go on killing sprees than the general population.

        I agree that creating a three-year waiting period would be a denial of rights, but I am not so sure that limiting magazines to 10 rounds really causes anyone to “suffer.”

        • avatarSilver says:

          Except the old woman who may not get a center mass shot every time trying to hold off a burglar/rapist/ex-husband at her bathroom door. But who cares about her, she’s just a rural bitter clinger, right?

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: I understand what you are saying. There are valid reasons to own a 30-round magazine. There are also bad reasons to own one.

          The debate was not about reasons, though, it was about rights.

          If I were to say that the reasons are not proven, then you would say it is about rights. If I were to point out that rights will be fairly debated, and fairly decided in accordance with the Constitution, then you will say that reason is on your side.

          Honestly, I don’t think either argument is a winner. I doubt there are a lot of little old ladies who have the foresight to order a 30-round magazine just in case the first nine don’t do the job.

          Even if there are whole “notebooks” of such women, is this a larger number or a smaller number than disgruntled ex-employees looking to settle a score, but without the accuracy to get the job done in eight shots?

          As far as the argument about rights is concerned, if the Supreme Court says you are wrong, then you are wrong. If the Supreme Court says you are right, then you are right. Kind of by definition.

          I am willing to wait to hear what they say. But I can tell you right now, they won’t be opening the discussion up for public comment.

        • avatarSilver says:

          -As far as the argument about rights is concerned, if the Supreme Court says you are wrong, then you are wrong. If the Supreme Court says you are right, then you are right. Kind of by definition.-

          Thus proven that tyranny can be enacted by supposed unbiased mediators. It’s a no-brainer that the modern SCOTUS is a bunch of political activists. What they declare might be right or wrong legally, but certainly not morally, and most definitely not constitutionally.

          The founding fathers knew that tyranny comes in many forms, which is why the 2A exists and why the supposed checks and balances system exists. There IS a right and wrong, and there is a constitutional and unconstitutional, and those definitions exist in inherent truth no matter what corrupt elected officials or SCOTUS judges with a personal agenda declare. Rights cannot be “decided” and because they exist independent of the Constitution – the latter only lists and recognizes those inalienable rights.

          Legal does not always equal right, and illegal does not always equal wrong.

          If we can’t move past that disagreement, I suppose there’s nowhere left to go.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: I suppose you are right that we will not get past that. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that the Constitution is a fundamental law, and the court will have the responsibility to ascertain the meaning. (Not in quotes because I don’t have the original in front of me.)

          The Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional, which essentially gives them the power to regulate themselves, or to exempt themselves from regulation.

          That doesn’t make it right, but it pretty much does (as far as I can see) make it constitutional.

        • avatarduke nukem says:

          hey man. even of you limit the mags to 10 rounds whats stopping someone with mental problems grabbing 15 mags and go on a shooting spree? so if going by your logic that include cops and federal agents too????

    • avatarSilver says:

      The fact that you can’t understand the concept of incrementalism and how subtle yet incessant whittling of rights like the 2A works, means your opinion is unworthy of consideration. Quite simply, yes, taking away a pistol grip is the first step toward tyranny. Why? Because it directly violates the words “shall not be infringed,” punishes no one but law-abiding citizens, and is only the first step on a road toward total disarmament. Would you be so quick to dismiss new laws limiting certain words you’re allowed to say, or certain issues you’re allowed to protest? After all, it’s not TOTAL tyranny is it? It doesn’t TOTALLY strip the 1A, does it?

      His EOs are a bunch of toothless pandering, I don’t care about his EOs. But the proposals of mag bans and an AWB are, plain and simple, unconstitutionally criminal. Rights are NOT up for debate or voting. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. I’m sorry you fail to understand that, like so many other American subjects. If 99 percent of the idiots in this country wanted the 2A gone, they can FOAD, because rights are not subject to popular opinion.

      None are so blind as they who refuse to see.

  24. avatarJames says:

    Sent the standard NRA letter to all my reps, etc. Here is the response I got. This is PA by the way.

    As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In response to your outreach to my office, I wanted to share my views regarding gun violence, particularly in the aftermath of the devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. As Americans, we all felt the loss of each child and each teacher and administrator, and my thoughts and prayers are with their families and neighbors.

    There are have been far too many incidents of gun violence in our nation and I believe that we must take action to end gun violence and increase gun safety. We should do so by recognizing the responsibilities of gun ownership; ensuring that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or those who are mentally ill; and strengthening the safety and security of our homes, schools, communities, and our public spaces. I have long sought action to achieve these goals, and I am encouraged by the recent efforts by Congress and the Obama Administration to reach out to the many factions in this debate and identify meaningful action we can take to reduce gun violence. I have heard from many Pennsylvanians since the tragic shooting in Newtown, all calling for action to protect their families and their communities.

    Democratic leadership in the House recently formed a new House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, chaired by my colleague Mike Thompson, (CA-05), an avid hunter and Vietnam War veteran. As an active member of the task force, I am working with my colleagues as we reach out to law enforcement, gun owners, mayors, victims, mental health professionals, and experts in violence prevention to identify a comprehensive approach to reduce gun violence.

    Recommendations are likely to include better enforcement of current laws and new provisions that will require either executive or legislative action. These include: reauthorization of the Federal Assaults Weapons Ban, tougher criminal penalties against straw purchasers, closing loopholes that enable millions of gun purchases to be made privately or at gun shows without background checks, ban on large magazines and multi-round ammunition, methods to better ensure accuracy and timeliness of database for seriously mentally ill who should not be able to purchase guns, and improvements in available treatment for mental illnesses, and research on gun violence and effective prevention strategies. I support these efforts.

    In the new 113th Congress I have cosponsored several bills aimed at curbing gun violence including the Gun Transparency, Accountability and Enforcement (Gun TRACE) Act, which will enable the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (AFT) to release crime gun trace data to state and local law enforcement and the public; retain records of background checks on firearm purchases for 90 days; and require inventory audits of federally licensed gun dealers to prevent the illegal transfer of guns into the wrong hands. I am also a cosponsor of the Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act. Right now, when a gun dealer has their license revoked or denied renewal by the federal government, they are permitted to convert the gun inventory into a private collection to be sold without the requirement of performing a background check on the purchaser. This bill would end this practice of allowing evasion of background checks.

    In addition, I am currently working with my colleagues to repeal existing prohibitions on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct crucial scientific research into firearm safety. Gun violence is a public health issue and public health agencies should have the ability to develop and pursue violence prevention and mental health research.

    Now is the time for us to put our determination to end gun violence in our society to work to prevent both another tragedy such as happened in Newtown and the senseless loss of life that occurs almost daily across our nation due to gun violence.

    Thank you for contacting me and for offering your thoughts on this important subject. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again to offer an opinion or if my office can be of assistance.

    Sincerely,
    Allyson Y. Schwartz
    Member of Congress

    • avatarWill says:

      So this guy’s saying that he doesn’t really care what you say, he’s got to be seen stopping gun violence, and the best way is to follow the lead of the gun-grabbers and rape the 2nd Amendment. Oh yeah, and to attempt to NOT look like he is doing exactly what he is doing, he throws a little smoke: about veterans and hunters…. Don’t look behind the curtain, nothing to see there. That guy who has something to gain one way or another over banning guns doesn’t exist there at all… look!!! There’s Elvis!!!

      He’s sayin’ that legally licensed gun sellers will stock up, flush their license down the proverbial toilet, knowing full well how easy it will be to get it back, just to be able to unload the guns to anybody and everybody who doesn’t want to be checked because they know they’d fail the check.

      Shows how dangerous he really is.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Will: There are only two things wrong with this argument:
        1. No one is coming to take away your guns.
        2. Many gun dealers actually do sell guns they report as “stolen”

        • avatarSilver says:

          1. Just some of them, right? The ones the media has deemed scary? But that’s ok, taking away half a right isn’t really oppression, right?

          Just stand there in the crowd with that stupid grin in your face and sig-heil that smooth talking man promising to solve all your problems. Nothing bad ever came of that.

          After all, he just wants to oppress the people you don’t like, so there’s nothing wrong with it.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: Passing a law through an elected Congress is not “oppression”. Oppression is when you exercise power in an unjust, cruel, or unfair manner. This is none of those.

        • avatarSilver says:

          Wrong. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, that “legitimacy” doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. Congress does not get a blank check to pass any law it wants simply because they vote on it. Once more, constitutional republic, not a straight democracy.

          You honestly think oppression can’t be “elected?”

          These “gun control” laws re unjust and unfair in every sense of the words, and I bet plenty of victims unable to defend themselves would add cruel to that.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Obviously oppression can be rooted in an election, I just don’t think this is one of those times. Is it “cruel” to make you do a background check? Is it “unjust” to make them saw the pistol grip off your hunting rifle?

          To me, “cruel” would be if they forced you to go through Army Basic Training to get a gun permit. “Unjust” would be if there was a three-year waiting period.

          But I just don’t see how banning 30-round magazines is going to lead to tyranny.

        • avatarWill says:

          1) Time will tell. Usually a government will tell you they’re NOT doing something when in fact it is their goal. For that matter, that can be said of big-business too. Or look at Lance Armstrong. “I’m not and never have taken any performance enhancing drugs.” was his statement right up until the time “I was taking endurance enhancing drugs” talking to Oprah.

          2) I’d love to see your evidence of dealers intentionally proclaiming a gun as stolen and then selling it to someone to avoid a background check.

          They are moving in steps low budget… First ban the 30 round mags… oh studies show that such a thing would have little impact. For that matter the New York police commissioner has gone on record as saying that the Statewide ban of magazines that hold more than 7 rounds (even allowing the 10 round mags to be grandfathered in, as long as you don’t put more than seven in) is going to be totally ineffective.

          After this has been shown to NOT work, they’ll try something even tighter and more draconian/Gestapo like to curb the violence. Oh yeah, they’ll make their case and demand a total ban, worse than DiFi’s ban that would make 90% of all guns illegal to possess if it passes without challenge.

        • Will,

          1. You are comparing Lance Armstrong to the U.S. Government?
          2. You seriously believe that there are no gun dealers trafficking guns? I am pretty sure my point is a lot easier to prove than yours.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-campaigns-to-protect_b_710496.html

  25. avatarKVD says:

    A poem…

    Remember, remember the fourth of November
    The gun-grabbing treason and plot.
    I know of no reason why the gun-grabber treason
    Should ever be forgot.

    Remember, remember, the fourth of November,
    The votes that they had they will not.
    A clip or a mag or a stock they would take
    Will you please let us keep ourselves safe
    If you won’t let us be then we shall not be through
    ‘Til they’re stripped of power they freely abuse

  26. avatarIdahoMan says:

    If NRA/GOP does so much as “strengthen” the NICS, turn your back on them, burn your membership cards, and never vote Republican again.

    Enough. They will either get gun-control laws REPEALED, or they can just loose.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      Idaho: So you aren’t even in favor of background checks?

      Am I correct in assuming that you live on a compound?

      • avatarIdahoMan says:

        What kind of person can claim they support the 2nd Amendment and be in favor of background checks?

        • avatarduke nukem says:

          excuse me? i fully support background checks and the 2A!!!!unless you are a felon or something??? the whole notion of “national registry” name given to stricter background checks is absurd. theres no way the government can come and “take away our guns” as some retared people has claimed.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Idaho man: Something like 9 out of 10 gun owners support background checks. Something like 50% of gun owners support additional background checks. It is an easy way to enforce a common sense law with hurting anyone’s rights.

          You are nearly alone on this one. You have the right to hold extremist opinions, of course, but don’t come here pretending that I am the one who is being unreasonable.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          ROTFLMFAO, So explain again, how a law that by US supreme court ruling (Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment) doesnt apply to felons, of whom 95% dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, and the BATF refuses to prosecute 99% of the 5% who do attempt to buy from a licensed source, explain again how that will actually be effective and reduce violence?

        • Jarhead: It seems funny to me how the NRA keeps saying: “All we need to do is enforce existing laws.” Then, when someone actually steps up and says: “OK”, the first thing the NRA says is that existing laws are ineffective.

          Background checks don’t work very well now, because the laws against gun trafficking are poorly enforced. If we started enforcing the laws, background checks would become quite a bit more effective.

        • avatarWill says:

          Low Budget…. IF you don’t enforce existing laws, they ARE ineffective. If you have a speed limit in a school zone of say 25, but the cops routinely let people pass doing 75 in the same zone, the law of that is the speed you must travel, and not a mile over that, is rendered completely ineffective due to it not being enforced.

          Let them be fully enforced and then proven not to work before you look to change them for stricter laws. (Although in this case, the direction taken with them still has little to no effect on a criminal.)

        • Will: I don’t think passing laws is an “either / or” situation. If Congress decides that existing laws are too lenient, then they are allowed to increase enforcement, and also pass tougher laws.

          I don’t know of anything in the Constitution that says you have to evaluate the effectiveness and willingness of a police department before you pass a law.

  27. avatarWatchmen lewis says:

    Hitler and Stalin did the same thing

    • Watchman, no they didn’t. The lie that Hitler passed gun control laws is widely repeated on right-wing blogs, but has no basis in reality. If you get your news from any real historical sources, you can easily find out that Hitler made gun laws more lenient, not tougher.

      Hitler did prohibit Jews from owning guns, but this is an indictment of racism and genocide, not gun control. The argument that the Jew could have fought back is absurd: No one in all of Western Europe was able to fight back until the US entered the war. France, for example, was over-run in a matter of days, and they had stockpiles of guns.

      While it is true that gun confiscation in Russia started under Stalin, it was hardly necessary to insure his rise to power. The Communists were very much in control of Russia even back when guns were everywhere.

      Also, I am pretty sure you are confusing “background checks” with “Gun confiscation.” They really aren’t the same thing at all.

  28. avatarBHirsh says:

    Here’s a c&p you are free to use:

    Dear [Whomever]:

    The purpose of this letter is to urge you to oppose any efforts by anti-rights factions in the legislature to introduce bans on any class of legal firearms, or any of their component parts. Such action would be an impermissible intrusion on our right to arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court jurisprudence.

    The purpose for guaranteeing the right as stated in the Second Amendment is to put the people in parity with government troops, if called upon by their states to muster with their own arms suitable for military use, to defend against central usurpation of authority executed by force of arms.

    This is not a radical philosophy, it is not an antiquated notion, it is not imaginary; it is a First Principle of this union. It is THE First Principle of this union.

    Arguments abound about “living constitution” this and “obsolete” that, but if you pull the keystone of our liberty from the structure the structure will fall, and we are not willing to allow that. Times change, but principles don’t.

    To validate my assertion, I direct you to U.S. v. Miller (1939), D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald et al v. City of Chicago (2010).

    U.S. v. Miller established a two-pronged test to define what small arms enjoy constitutional protection. In ruling that since no evidence had been presented to the Court to prove that the sawed-off shotgun in question was an arm “in common use” that bore “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia”, or was “part of the ordinary military equipment”, the Court could not say that keeping and bearing it was protected by the Second Amendment. In doing so, the Court set in precedent the test that now determines what arms are protected. Fully automatic small arms fail to meet the first prong of that test, but semiautomatic small arms meet both, as do their component parts. There is no dancing around this.

    D.C. v. Heller held that the people have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia, and to use those arms for lawful purposes SUCH AS self-defense within the home (emphasis mine; lawful uses are not confined to the home). Heller cited Miller as the test of what arms are protected, and said further that “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms[.]” – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    McDonald v. Chicago extended that holding to bind the states.

    The duty to comply with constitutional constraints is not limited to the judicial or executive branches; it applies to yours as well. You took an oath to preserve and defend them.

    I call on you to honor that oath and stop this gun ban nonsense before it causes real trouble.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Sincerely,

    Etc.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.