Has your voice been heard?

M

MLeake

New member
A lot of people are worried about the sky falling as the result of Aurora.

But how many of those people have done anything about it?

For my part, I just finished using online contact forms to advise Senators Blunt and McCaskill, and Representative Graves, of my feelings on the matter.

It would be very nice if all the other TFL members who have participated in related threads would contact their own Senators and Representative, and ensure their voices are heard.

Right now, the anti's are in the spotlight. Their voices are being heard. We need to overwhelm those voices, and the media are not likely to help. The way forward is direct contact with those who represent us.

Regards,

M
 
Enthusiastically seconded.

With a few minor exceptions, most politicians have agreed that gun laws wouldn't have helped here. The few exceptions are the usual suspects, and even they have been someone muted in their calls for new laws. Notice their focus on "keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons" rather than "ban all the assault guns!"

What a change from the 1990s!

We have the opportunity to present ourselves as the better men (and women) by not over-politicizing the issue. My communications with my congresscritters have been an expression of mourning, supplemented with thanks for realizing that new laws are not the answer.
 
Also, keep in mind this needs to be an ongoing effort. Our representatives are most likely being bombarded with correspondence related to recent events. However, after the furor dies down and the average person moves on to the next big thing we need to stay engaged.

I would also encourage everyone not to overlook your State and Local representatives. We regularly focus on our representatives in Washington, but often it is the local folks that have more impact on your actual right to carry. On several occasions I have called my State Representatives or Senators and asked to speak to them and to my surprise they either answer the phone or return my call at a later time.

Consider joining and/or supporting some of the various Second Amendment rights group. While, I know to some the term lobbyist has become synonymous with corruption, but politicians realize that these groups represent large numbers of constituents.
 
Assault weapon ban?

First, IF you (generally speaking to all citizens) believe in the 2nd Amendment, then one should also know the reason for the 2nd amendment. It is not, nor ever was, about hunting or sport shooting or such. It was ALL about protecting our freedoms from tyrants, foreign and domestic.

If we can assume that MOST believe the above, then I would suggest the following:

In 1774, armed militia of that time, owned and used the weapons of THAT DAY. Had they been able to own a smokeless powder Winchester, or a Colt 1911, or even a M1 Carbine, does anyone think Patrick Henry would NOT have purchased what ever would be available for that time? IF by some magic, Patrick Henry could have bought an AR-15, to grab at a moments notice, you think he wouldn't have bought one!

I would add this hypothetical - If you were to find yourself holed up with your family, while armed gang-bangers trash their way to you ... would you want your grandpappy's old Greener? Or pick up an AR-15 and LOTS of mags and LOTS of ammo? (I know ... far fetched thinking to most.)

If you believe and understand the purpose and rights provided by the 2nd amendment, then the assault weapon ban discussion should never get off the telepromter page!

Just my two cents.
 
Hey, guys, we're winning. The Second Amendment is stronger now than it was thirty years ago, and shows no signs of retreating. The Courts are on our side, the antis are getting desperate and legislatures are passing pro-2A laws on a regular basis.

I agree that it's no time to be complacent, and we've got to keep up the pressure, but both the Executive branch and Congress agrees that gun-banning is political suicide. We don't need to be strident, we don't need to panic. Let the other side do that. Now's the time for reasoned responses to the attacks, a calm, considerate reply to those who have not yet seen the light.

Take a liberal shooting, introduce a non-gunner to the shooting sports. Mentor kids, do all the things that show us to be reasonable, rational, law-abiding people. Push the message that the Aurora shooter (I refuse to use his name) broke laws that keep us all safe and that thinking people can't turn away from evil. It exists in our midst and we've got to confront it when possible.

We're winning, guys. Take a deep breath and act like winners.
 
Act like winners; be polite; use good grammar and spelling.

But don't assume 5-4 court decisions could not be vulnerable at some later date, as Justices get replaced.

And don't let those who represent us forget that sometimes the loudest voices out there do NOT represent the majority of their constituency.
 
We're winning, guys. Take a deep breath and act like winners.
Click to expand...
Precisely. It sometimes seems like some folks in the gun culture aren't happy if they're not being treated like some oppressed minority.

I agree with MLeake that we can't be complacent, but we don't have to be strident either.
 
It isn't just the anti-gunners who operate on the theory of "Never let a crisis go to waste." I got a call from the NRA a few minutes ago, asking for money. It just proves (to me) that the NRA has no idea who makes up their membership. Most organizations (SAF, for example) start off asking for something on the order of $50. Not the NRA -- the caller was a young woman who was so functionally illiterate that she stumbled (badly) over about every third word in her script. The opening request was for $100 or $200.

I was so insulted that I didn't even wait for the counter-offers. I just told her that was impossible, and hung up.
 
For local laws you may have to worry depending on where you live. As far as federal we have one of the most gun friendly presidents we have had in a long time cutting many regulations. We have a candidate for president that signed into law permanent assault weapons ban at the state level but like nearly everything else he has flipped on that. So either way were ok in the white house. To many pro gun congressmen. A few on the fringes but nothing to worry about. Its the states we need to worry about. We booted out a gun friendly governor in iowa but for all the worries I have about the guy we have now gun control is not one of em.


Un treaty is a NRA fund-raiser it would have no effect on our gun rights. If anything it would bring gun manufacturers to the US so as not to lose out on gun sales in america. Don't buy into the hype
 
Last edited:
Response from Congressman Graves

Thought the members here might be interested in this one.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and a potential ban on assault weapons. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Let me first say that as a lifelong gun enthusiast, I will continue my steadfast support of our Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States upon taking office. As such, I am committed to preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for about 15 percent of the more than 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States, and are used for the same purposes that other firearms are, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting. Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. Contrary to some reports, semi-automatics can't "spray fire," and aren't easy to convert into machine guns.
A ban on new manufacture of assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds was imposed from 1994 to 2004. Crime reports and felon surveys showed that assault weapons were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban, while crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent. In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with assault weapons by about 37-to-1. Additionally, there are now more assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds than ever before, and the nation's murder rate is at a 47-year low, having decreased 52 percent since 1991.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have strongly opposed every attempt to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. I have always considered myself a friend and supporter of responsible and law-abiding gun owners, and believe the rights of these individuals needs to be preserved. It is no secret that President Barack Obama and his liberal anti-gun activists would like to see added regulations on the gun market and decreased access to firearms for all Americans. Rest assured, however, that I will actively and aggressively oppose them at every turn. Simply put, we do not need more anti-gun regulations for law-abiding citizens.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please feel free to call my office at (202) 225-7041 should you have any further questions or concerns about this or any other issue, or visit my website at http://graves.house.gov for more information.

Sincerely,

Sam Graves
Member of Congress

Congressman Sam Graves
mo06ima@mail.house.gov
Click to expand...
 
I called my congressman last week to tell him that our Attorney General should be impeached. I also called to say that I expected him to vote to censure him, which he did vote for. Tomorrow, I will be calling him again to remind him of my stance on the 2nd Amendment, which I have already shared with him. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top