here's another post from the tenn board....fubsy.
Reply-to: tennfirearmsassoc@egroups.com
To: tennfirearmsassoc@egroups.com
These thoughts were on another closed list and I thought in light of the
recent Senate vote, we could all take a deep breath and put it in perspective.
Tim
===========================================================================
>We've all seen the reports of the votes in the US Senate, and there is
(justifiable) concern regarding the anti-gun amendments to Orin Hatch's
juvenile justice legislation.
>Following is my opinion regarding this situation.
>Like many of you, I am concerned about pro-gun US Senators not voting with
us. It would be nice if they would vote to kill all of the anti-gun
amendments that are being offered. But in reality, this probably won't
happen.
>For us Michiganders, it is important that we contact Senator Abraham and
advise him of our concern. I'd also call Senator Levin, just for the
nuisance value of it. He won't ever vote with us, but if we bug him
enough, his job (and his staff members jobs) will be less fun, and maybe
they will seek other employment opportunities. Anyway, I wouldn't quit the
field.
>Also, it is important to begin calling our US Representatives on these
federal gun control initiatives. An alert from NRA requesting this action
is imminent. Get ready to activate your fellow pro-gunners in this regard.
We need to melt down the US Capitol switchboard!
>It is also important to remember that there is a lot going on behind the
scenes with this legislative package. Again, for us Michiganders, remember
that our concealed carry reform package is a total of 15 separate pieces of
legislation. This was done f
>or a reason - to give some Michigan Reps. some political cover, in
exchange for their vote to pass concealed carry reform.
>It is a tactic of anti-gunners, if they see that a bill they don't like is
headed for passage, to try and load it up with unpalatable and outright
anti-gun amendments. That way, if they are able to attach their
amendments, and the legislation still passes, they have salvaged something
from the deal. The real goal however, is to get so many anti-gun amendments
attached that the pro-gun vote deserts, leaving the entire package to go
down to defeat. We saw this in Michigan, in the committee with Rep. Brater
trying this tactic. Because we had our "ducks in a row", she failed.
Remember also that we couldn't do this last year (consequently, Cropsey II
got amended with the drug testing requirement, and so forth).
>This same scenario is currently playing itself out at the federal level.
Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Herr Klinton, et.al. do NOT want Hatch's
juvenile justice legislation to pass. But, they don't have the votes to
stop it. Consequently, they are tryin
>g to (a) use it as a vehicle to get more gun control measures enacted and
(b) try and strip votes away from the main legislation, hoping that enough
folks will jump ship, leaving the legislation to go down to defeat.
Alternatively, if the votes disappear, Hatch himself might pull the bill
from consideration.
>Also, looming in the background, is Klinton's veto. They need this
legislation to pass by a veto proof majority.
>Herein lies the "rub", and why we are seeing pro-gun Senators voting with
the anti's on some of these amendments. The R's want the main legislation,
and they are willing to agree to some anti-gun things to get this
legislation passed with enough votes to
>override a veto.
>The R's are in a tough spot. The majority of R Senators really, really
want this package. But, they do not have a veto proof majority. The D's
know this. The R's can't enact this juvenile justice legislation without
help from the D's. If they don't get it passed, the D's will turn around
and say the R's are soft on crime.
>The D's know that they can't stop this legislation in the Senate. They
also know that they will lose a straight up fight in the Senate on
gun-control. They will then lose again, at the ballot box in November,
2000, if they push gun control on a solo basis.
>The D's tactic, therefore, is to attach gun control measures to this
legislation, knowing that the pro-gunners will get angry with pro-gun
senators if they support the amendments. This stands to maybe kill the
legislation (which the D's want), but also it advances the D's agenda,
whether the legislation passes or not. Remember, they are trying to get
the R's to cast votes that alienate us gunnies. This enhances their
chances to de-elect R's in November, 2000.
>The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: THE D'S CANNOT END UP BEING
LOSERS IN THIS FIGHT. Even if the legislation passes without anti-gun
amendments attached, Klinton will veto it, and it won't be overridden. If
the get amendments attached and it pass
>es, Klinton and the gun grabbers win because they get more gun controls,
and they know (and will assure that) the prosecutors they appointed will
NOT enforce this law against the juveniles. And, since us gunnies are
already starting to turn on pro-gun R's Senators, they have already begun
to realize their goal of separating the pro-gun vote form the R's.
>Don't lose sight of the big picture. The goal of the D's is to retake
the House, Senate and hopefully retain the Presidency. The prospect of
keeping the Presidency ain't looking good for them right now. But both the
US House and the US Senate are up for grabs, at this point. The D's
chances are enhanced if the alienate the gunnies from the R's.
>This is what they are working on. If they succeed, us gunnies are hosed,
big time!
>IMO, the R's are acting stupidly by trying to push the juvenile justice
legislation. They should have learned this two years ago, because it
didn't go anywhere during the last legislative session. I hope that they
pull the legislation, instead of pushing
>their weak position further.
>On our part, again, we need to call and write our elected officials. We
also need to hang tough, and not let ourselves be manipulated by the media
and by the Klinton and D spinmeisters. We need to be sure we examine all
of the facts and that we are sure we understand WHY folks voted as they
did. We need to form our own judgements on whether a candidate for
election or re-election is pro-gun or anti-gun. We also need to remember
that a lot of pro-gun professional political operatives are working on this
situation on our behalf, and that they are helping certain US Senators
decide how to cast their votes on these and other legislative matters. We
are paying these lobbyists to represent us gunnies. Let's not make their
job any more difficult than it is, by knee-jerk reactions to reports that
pro-gun Senators are "selling us out". Get the facts first, before you
react are initiate an angry call to a US Senator.
>Again, for us Michiganders, remember that we had to take care how we
contacted our state-level elected folks. Our US Reps. and Senators are no
different. They will react better to us if we are calm and rational in our
letters, faxes and phone calls.
>In the short term, we will have to be satisfied with some
less-than-stalwart Senators and Representatives, and try to make the best
of a bad situation.
>In the long run, grassroots activists need to be sure we elect stalwart
pro-gunners to the State Houses, State Senates, State Assemblies and
Governorships. These are the guys that "grow up" to become US Senators,
Congressmen and Presidents (especially in Michigan, when they are
term-limited out). If we do out job right at the state level, our
situation WILL improve at the Federal level, because we WILL elect these
folks to National office, and they will be beholden to us for getting them
there.
>Remember also that the gunnies did not get into our weakened federal-level
political position overnight. We are still ahead of where we were at six
years ago, when we LOST two straight up fights on gun-control issues (Brady
and the Ugly Gun/Magazine Ban). It is going to take more time (perhaps
several years) to get back to where we want to be. Please maintain a
long-run point of view. We need to be thinking in terms of 70 pro-gun US
Senators and about 325 pro-gun US reps. It will take a while to get
>to this point.
>Finally, remember that some of our most vocal opponents in the US Senate
and House have announced their retirements (Chaffee and Lautenberg for
example). Other of our opponents may succumb to old age. Kennedy is
getting old (if his drinking doesn't get
>him first). Diane Feinstein is no spring chicken, either. And Sarah
(Brady) darlin' is getting to be an old hag. Even though she is not an
elected official, I will rejoice when she gets out of our misery. This
will happen soon enough, thanks to Father
>Time.
>Klinton is also gone from office, in less than two years. Good riddance!
>Let's hang in there! If we persevere, we will win!
>Thanks for sticking with this lengthy posting. Again, these are my opinions.
Reply-to: tennfirearmsassoc@egroups.com
To: tennfirearmsassoc@egroups.com
These thoughts were on another closed list and I thought in light of the
recent Senate vote, we could all take a deep breath and put it in perspective.
Tim
===========================================================================
>We've all seen the reports of the votes in the US Senate, and there is
(justifiable) concern regarding the anti-gun amendments to Orin Hatch's
juvenile justice legislation.
>Following is my opinion regarding this situation.
>Like many of you, I am concerned about pro-gun US Senators not voting with
us. It would be nice if they would vote to kill all of the anti-gun
amendments that are being offered. But in reality, this probably won't
happen.
>For us Michiganders, it is important that we contact Senator Abraham and
advise him of our concern. I'd also call Senator Levin, just for the
nuisance value of it. He won't ever vote with us, but if we bug him
enough, his job (and his staff members jobs) will be less fun, and maybe
they will seek other employment opportunities. Anyway, I wouldn't quit the
field.
>Also, it is important to begin calling our US Representatives on these
federal gun control initiatives. An alert from NRA requesting this action
is imminent. Get ready to activate your fellow pro-gunners in this regard.
We need to melt down the US Capitol switchboard!
>It is also important to remember that there is a lot going on behind the
scenes with this legislative package. Again, for us Michiganders, remember
that our concealed carry reform package is a total of 15 separate pieces of
legislation. This was done f
>or a reason - to give some Michigan Reps. some political cover, in
exchange for their vote to pass concealed carry reform.
>It is a tactic of anti-gunners, if they see that a bill they don't like is
headed for passage, to try and load it up with unpalatable and outright
anti-gun amendments. That way, if they are able to attach their
amendments, and the legislation still passes, they have salvaged something
from the deal. The real goal however, is to get so many anti-gun amendments
attached that the pro-gun vote deserts, leaving the entire package to go
down to defeat. We saw this in Michigan, in the committee with Rep. Brater
trying this tactic. Because we had our "ducks in a row", she failed.
Remember also that we couldn't do this last year (consequently, Cropsey II
got amended with the drug testing requirement, and so forth).
>This same scenario is currently playing itself out at the federal level.
Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Herr Klinton, et.al. do NOT want Hatch's
juvenile justice legislation to pass. But, they don't have the votes to
stop it. Consequently, they are tryin
>g to (a) use it as a vehicle to get more gun control measures enacted and
(b) try and strip votes away from the main legislation, hoping that enough
folks will jump ship, leaving the legislation to go down to defeat.
Alternatively, if the votes disappear, Hatch himself might pull the bill
from consideration.
>Also, looming in the background, is Klinton's veto. They need this
legislation to pass by a veto proof majority.
>Herein lies the "rub", and why we are seeing pro-gun Senators voting with
the anti's on some of these amendments. The R's want the main legislation,
and they are willing to agree to some anti-gun things to get this
legislation passed with enough votes to
>override a veto.
>The R's are in a tough spot. The majority of R Senators really, really
want this package. But, they do not have a veto proof majority. The D's
know this. The R's can't enact this juvenile justice legislation without
help from the D's. If they don't get it passed, the D's will turn around
and say the R's are soft on crime.
>The D's know that they can't stop this legislation in the Senate. They
also know that they will lose a straight up fight in the Senate on
gun-control. They will then lose again, at the ballot box in November,
2000, if they push gun control on a solo basis.
>The D's tactic, therefore, is to attach gun control measures to this
legislation, knowing that the pro-gunners will get angry with pro-gun
senators if they support the amendments. This stands to maybe kill the
legislation (which the D's want), but also it advances the D's agenda,
whether the legislation passes or not. Remember, they are trying to get
the R's to cast votes that alienate us gunnies. This enhances their
chances to de-elect R's in November, 2000.
>The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: THE D'S CANNOT END UP BEING
LOSERS IN THIS FIGHT. Even if the legislation passes without anti-gun
amendments attached, Klinton will veto it, and it won't be overridden. If
the get amendments attached and it pass
>es, Klinton and the gun grabbers win because they get more gun controls,
and they know (and will assure that) the prosecutors they appointed will
NOT enforce this law against the juveniles. And, since us gunnies are
already starting to turn on pro-gun R's Senators, they have already begun
to realize their goal of separating the pro-gun vote form the R's.
>Don't lose sight of the big picture. The goal of the D's is to retake
the House, Senate and hopefully retain the Presidency. The prospect of
keeping the Presidency ain't looking good for them right now. But both the
US House and the US Senate are up for grabs, at this point. The D's
chances are enhanced if the alienate the gunnies from the R's.
>This is what they are working on. If they succeed, us gunnies are hosed,
big time!
>IMO, the R's are acting stupidly by trying to push the juvenile justice
legislation. They should have learned this two years ago, because it
didn't go anywhere during the last legislative session. I hope that they
pull the legislation, instead of pushing
>their weak position further.
>On our part, again, we need to call and write our elected officials. We
also need to hang tough, and not let ourselves be manipulated by the media
and by the Klinton and D spinmeisters. We need to be sure we examine all
of the facts and that we are sure we understand WHY folks voted as they
did. We need to form our own judgements on whether a candidate for
election or re-election is pro-gun or anti-gun. We also need to remember
that a lot of pro-gun professional political operatives are working on this
situation on our behalf, and that they are helping certain US Senators
decide how to cast their votes on these and other legislative matters. We
are paying these lobbyists to represent us gunnies. Let's not make their
job any more difficult than it is, by knee-jerk reactions to reports that
pro-gun Senators are "selling us out". Get the facts first, before you
react are initiate an angry call to a US Senator.
>Again, for us Michiganders, remember that we had to take care how we
contacted our state-level elected folks. Our US Reps. and Senators are no
different. They will react better to us if we are calm and rational in our
letters, faxes and phone calls.
>In the short term, we will have to be satisfied with some
less-than-stalwart Senators and Representatives, and try to make the best
of a bad situation.
>In the long run, grassroots activists need to be sure we elect stalwart
pro-gunners to the State Houses, State Senates, State Assemblies and
Governorships. These are the guys that "grow up" to become US Senators,
Congressmen and Presidents (especially in Michigan, when they are
term-limited out). If we do out job right at the state level, our
situation WILL improve at the Federal level, because we WILL elect these
folks to National office, and they will be beholden to us for getting them
there.
>Remember also that the gunnies did not get into our weakened federal-level
political position overnight. We are still ahead of where we were at six
years ago, when we LOST two straight up fights on gun-control issues (Brady
and the Ugly Gun/Magazine Ban). It is going to take more time (perhaps
several years) to get back to where we want to be. Please maintain a
long-run point of view. We need to be thinking in terms of 70 pro-gun US
Senators and about 325 pro-gun US reps. It will take a while to get
>to this point.
>Finally, remember that some of our most vocal opponents in the US Senate
and House have announced their retirements (Chaffee and Lautenberg for
example). Other of our opponents may succumb to old age. Kennedy is
getting old (if his drinking doesn't get
>him first). Diane Feinstein is no spring chicken, either. And Sarah
(Brady) darlin' is getting to be an old hag. Even though she is not an
elected official, I will rejoice when she gets out of our misery. This
will happen soon enough, thanks to Father
>Time.
>Klinton is also gone from office, in less than two years. Good riddance!
>Let's hang in there! If we persevere, we will win!
>Thanks for sticking with this lengthy posting. Again, these are my opinions.