Write your reps!! it only takes a second

Understand from what I heard on news broadcasts that today, a senate committee approved, on a party line vote, S. 150. Earlier, same committed had approved ""expanded background checks"".

I would not presume to speak for others, especially those I do not personally know, but for me, committee action is less than acceptable. I therefore respectfully suggest to readers/listeners here the following. Senate offices should disappear beneath the weight of phone calls, faxes, emails and "smoke signals" expressing unending opposition to this committee action, to demands that when and if the things come to an actual floor vote, that senators vote in opposition. No other action is acceptable. No negotiations, no deals, nothing other than negative votes will suffice.
 
TTT Again

Understand from what I heard on news broadcasts that today, a senate committee approved, on a party line vote, S. 150. Earlier, same committed had approved ""expanded background checks"".

I would not presume to speak for others, especially those I do not personally know, but for me, committee action is less than acceptable. I therefore respectfully suggest to readers/listeners here the following. Senate offices should disappear beneath the weight of phone calls, faxes, emails and "smoke signals" expressing unending opposition to this committee action, to demands that when and if the things come to an actual floor vote, that senators vote in opposition. No other action is acceptable. No negotiations, no deals, nothing other than negative votes will suffice.
Click to expand...

10-4 I am about to do a letter to that effect.

Actually here is exactly what I just wrote

If our voice hasn't been heard by now it isn't because we aren't speaking loudly or clearly enough it is because you are not listning.

We the people do not want further Gun laws or resctictions we want further restrictions and punishments on MURDER.

Stop making these people famous and start punishing them with the death penalty quickly.

Taking away our ability to defend ourselves does nothing to limit the criminal use of firearms. The very definition of a criminal is someone who acts without regard for the Law. So please explain to me how more laws will have an impact on criminal behavior.
 
I'm not sure if it works the same way in all states but if the senator is not my senator . I'm unable to email them . This really bugs me . There vote will impact everyone in CA but if I'm not there constituent there web page will not except my email and tells me to contact my rep . This would be no big deal if there vote only impacted there district but it doesn't . Does anybody have a quick way around this glitch ? I would like to email everybody that has a vote .
 
My understanding of S 150, possibly incorrect is that at present, it contains the following interesting exemption to the ban on "assault weapons", so-called in Senator Feinstein's proposal. Retired Police Officers would be exempted from the ban on firearms, I assume regarding the proposed limits on magazine capacity too.

Re this bit, I wonder as to what possible justification it might have, other than to perhaps obtain ''political cover" from one or another of the several police organizations one now and then hears of or from on the subject of gun control, lately gun safety, how come the change in terminology being another point of curiosity.

Additionally, in what one might refer to as a "discussion" between Senators Cruz of Texas, and Feinstein of California, the gentle lady seems to have bristled when Senator Cruz questioned her regarding the possibility of other restrictions on constitutional rights. He mentioned the possibility of Freedom Of Speech being limited with respect to opinions and or individuals who for some reason or other had fallen under executive or congressional "dislike". He also questioned the possibility of Fourth Amendment guarantees being limited in cases where the persons or papers of "unpopular" persons might be laid open to search and seizure, absent proper warrants.

From what I read of this discussion/argument in my local paper, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I believe that I have the sense, if not the exact wording of Senator Cruz's questions, which as above mentioned, caused Senator Feinstein to bristle. I believe she later apologized to Cruz. It strikes me however that "the lady doth to much protest her innocence", given the history of her firearms related proposals and comments, proposals and comments that go back quite a while.

Strikes me that the above points are worth raising in such communications readers might have with their own elected officials.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Metal god wrote:
Senior Member

Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 852 I'm not sure if it works the same way in all states but if the senator is not my senator . I'm unable to email them . This really bugs me . There vote will impact everyone in CA but if I'm not there constituent there web page will not except my email and tells me to contact my rep . This would be no big deal if there vote only impacted there district but it doesn't . Does anybody have a quick way around this glitch ? I would like to email everybody that has a vote .
__________________
When I got out of bed this morning I pulled my groin

I Liked it so much I pulled it again !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With members of the House of Representatives and or U.S. Senate, that has not been my experience.

If however, there web site should reject your comment, try the following toll free number. 1-866-220-0044. It rings at Capitol Switchboard, and callers are connected with whichever congressional or senate office they ask for.

Sometimes you will get a human being, staffers are perhaps such things, sometimes you can only leave a brief message, try writing out what you have to say beforehand. The small effort could well prove worthwhile, who knows.
 
TTT

What does TTT mean? Take the time? Talk to Them?
Click to expand...

Forum speak for To The Top in other words I want this seen as much as possible. It is often used in classified sections so folks listings show up at the top of the page. Normally doing this to a thread is annoying otherwise but I am making an exception here because this is just that important.

Regards, Vermonter
 
Vermonter:

Re your closing, "So please explain to me how more laws will have an impact on criminal behavior.", strikes me as a most valid, pointed question. Good luck obtaining any sort of sentient answer, which precludes the usual ""boiler plate, canned responses"" that issue forth from congressional/senatorial offices.

In closing, may I offer the following suggestion: Re waiting for "replies", Don't hold your breath, unless blue is one of your better colors.
 
Colorado Gov Link

Re your closing, "So please explain to me how more laws will have an impact on criminal behavior.", strikes me as a most valid, pointed question. Good luck obtaining any sort of sentient answer, which precludes the usual ""boiler plate, canned responses"" that issue forth from congressional/senatorial offices.

In closing, may I offer the following suggestion: Re waiting for "replies", Don't hold your breath, unless blue is one of your better colors.
Click to expand...

Alan thanks for the compliment. Not a siingle person has answered that question. I have gotten replies. Some even not form letters but they are all very canned pre rehersed political jumbo.

Here is a link for the Govoner of Colorado who is said to be tallying votes on a mag limit there. Why don't we all write him and tell him what we think?

http://www.colorado.gov/govhdir/requests/opinion-leg.html
 
Vermonter:

I doubt that out-of-state calls, emails, smoke signals would much influence Colorado's governor. His vote counting in Colorado could well be another thing. I therefore hope that gunnies in Colorado take the small amount of time and effort to express their thoughts to the governor. Of course, one thing that might well stand in the way of such necessary activity, is human nature, otherwise known as APATHY.
 
Alan

I doubt that out-of-state calls, emails, smoke signals would much influence Colorado's governor. His vote counting in Colorado could well be another thing. I therefore hope that gunnies in Colorado take the small amount of time and effort to express their thoughts to the governor. Of course, one thing that might well stand in the way of such necessary activity, is human nature, otherwise known as APATHY.
Click to expand...

My letter to him explained how much I travel there and how many dollars I have put into his states economy. Not a huge total but enough to notice anyway. I explained that I would have to reconsider such travel if I felt my safety was in jepordy with a mag limit etc etc. Mine carried extra weight I suppose because I was very very close to Aurora Sp? during the shooting there. I was in CO on business and was on my way out of dodge. I wander what would have happened if I decided to stop and catch a movie.

Hopefully he saw it hopefully he considered it.

Regards, Vermonter
 
Vermonter:

If the radio news bradcast I heard got it right, the Governor of Colorado sighed this bill.

Interestingly, I also understand that a number of Colorado sheriffs have stated that they will not enforce the law.

In whose court might the ball be now?
 
I got a letter from the white house :eek:

Dear Friend:




Thank you for taking the time to write. I have heard from many Americans regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective. From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family. I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.



Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation. Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage. Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence—whether in high-profile tragedies or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities—we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.



While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one. Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown. We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence—if even one life can be saved—then we have an obligation to try.



That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas. I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.



My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence. These tools include strengthening the background check system, helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence. And I directed the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence—because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.



As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress. To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act. As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away. First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban. We should get tougher on those who buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this.



These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people. But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love. We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best effort—to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.



Thank you, again, for writing. I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime to learn more about my Administration’s approach.




Sincerely,



Barack Obama
Click to expand...

second verse , same as the first
 
The following is a copy and paste of thouights,comments, questions I sent my U.S. Senators and Member of The House.

Readers here are welcome to use my thoughts/comments, questions as a guide/template for whatever they might address to their own, "elected officials".



Reiteration of a few points regarding the fiasco that is Gun Control, lately Gun Safety:

1. On Expanded or Universal Background Checks: If such were to be enacted, I suspect that such "background checks" could easily morph into a system of Arms Registration and or Arms Owner Registration, ideas that The Congress has, repeatedly and wisely rejected in the past. Additionally, and it is a matter of historical fact, Registration Leads To Confiscation, such confiscation having taken place in this country, legally owned arms being confiscated from the law abiding. I was a witness to such goings on years ago, when I resided in New York City.

2. Re the banning of "assault weapons", note the following. Anything that one person attacks another person with, by virtue of it's use, is the proverbial "assault weapon", firearm or otherwise. As to the latest of Lady Dianne's legislative flights of fancy, yet another proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons", once again, she goes on and on over cosmetic features. The semiautomatic rifle was first offered in this country by Winchester and Remington prior to World War 1, think 1906-1908, more than 100 years ago. Over that period, they have been made in various calibers, with various magazine capacities. The term "assault weapon" is the product of The Anti Gun/Anti Gun Rights Lobby's rhetoric, aided and abetted by media "hypsters", who serve as Anti Gun Fellow Travelers, or The Useful Idiots of yore.

3. Assault Rifle is a proper military/technical term, which refers to the Selective Fire Rifle, that is a weapon capable of firing multiple shots with a single actuation of it's trigger, ala a machine gun. Such arms are not generally available to the private citizen in this country, see 80 year old federal law, The National Firearms Act of 1934. Additionally, some states forbid the private citizen from possession of such arms, others do not. In any case, the numerous restrictions of existing federal law apply.

4. As to other proposals, Anti Trafficking Legislation and Anti Straw Purchases proposals, such activity is currently violative of existing federal law, law that is, under the aegis of Obama et al, not much enforced, as a rule. As to why this is, I suggest that you ask the president, he might be able to explain, I'm left curious. You might also question the president about his administration's Operation Fast & Furious.

We now come to a couple of additional points:

A. "common sense gun laws" which describe constitutionally questionable proposals, proposals that were in the past tried and which failed to bring promised results, is an interesting exercise in semantics. To describe the ridiculous as "common sense", imparts nothing desirable to such proposals. We simply see another exercise in "lipsticking the pig", action that has perhaps caused Cover Girl and or L'OREAL line to go onto an extra production shift, but which otherwise accomplish nothing.

B. Re the advertising campaign put on by New York City's Mayor Blomberg, the following comes to mind. This morning, on one of the Sunday news shows, I saw this ad on Channel 4, ABC here in Pittsburgh.. It displayed the very worst examples of unsafe gun handling that I had ever seen on television, or most other venues. It is such garbage as this that solicits viewers to "call their senators". Fair enough, I'm doing just that. Ignore Blomberg's blandishments. You might also take note of a Letter To The Editor in 31 March Pgh. P-G Forum section, page B-2, submitted by John Ball of Baden. The letter is titled Mishandling guns, and I submit, speaks most eloquently, for itself. You might review this letter, it's not lengthy, but it does make important points. One of which is, re Blomberg's ad campaign, "consider the source", for Mayor Blomberg is an unindicted conspirator, he having been the originator of a conspiracy to violate existing federal gun laws. all for your own good, of course. I wonder however if, having performed as he did, would Joe and or Jane Every Person today be walking around, free as the proverbial bird, or would they have since been indicted, tried and possibly convicted of serious violations of the law.

In short sir, the often stated goal of The Anti Gun Lobby, there is one you know, is and remains the Total Proscription of Privately Owned Arms, end of story. Re this fact, the only thing that can or should be offered to the anti gunners is, as some Irish friends were wont to note is "the back of me hand to ye". for compromise of any sort only encourages demands for more. There is no compromise possible with such people, for anything offered is viewed as a sign of weakness, lack of resolve, which serves only to encourage further demands. Never Forget That. The Anti Gunners will put endless amounts of lipstick on the same old pig. It remains that all they have to offer is the same old pig, albeit adorned with a bit more lipstick. Never Forget That.
 
Lets keep it going guys this week is a good time for your reps to here you .

The U.S. Senate has announced that anti-gun legislation will be heard on the floor next week. While that could change at any time, right now it means that your Second Amendment freedoms are on the chopping block, and you need to take immediate action to save them.

Senators are scheduled to vote on a so-called "universal background check" bill being pushed by lifelong anti-gun zealot, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y). Schumer's bill--S. 374, the "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013"-- would criminalize virtually all private firearm sales, even temporary transfers, making you a criminal if you simply transfer a firearm to an aunt, uncle, cousin or lifelong friend without the federal government's approval. Even worse, President Barack Obama's Justice Department says that Schumer's bill will only be effective if it's coupled with mandatory gun registration.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) gun and magazine ban legislation (S. 150) will not be a part of the Senate's base gun control bill, but the Senate previously announced that Feinstein will be allowed to offer her legislation as an amendment.
Click to expand...
 
I called my senator today. Senator Marco Rubio. Of course, he's already joined the Paul filibuster so it's almost redundant. But no time to lose our guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top