Senate Majority Leader Reid OPPOSED new AWB

[melensdad]

Congressional Pro-2A task force established

Miami News Record > News > Boren establishes Second Amendment task force

Boren establishes Second Amendment task force

from staff reports

Published: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:12 PM CST
U.S. Congressman Dan Boren, (OK-2) was joined today by U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, (GA-10), in announcing the creation of the Second Amendment Task Force (SATF) in the U.S. House of Representatives. Boren will serve as Democratic Co-Chairman, and Broun will serve as Republican Co-Chair during the 111th Congress.

The task force will be charged with monitoring legislation regarding the Second Amendment in the U.S. House during the 111th Congress. It will act as a unified and proactive force to promote legislation that protects the Second Amendment and to fight legislation that poses a threat to citizens' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

As voters we are quick to jump up and voice our opposition, but we should actually send a letter/email/phone call of thanks to these two men and encourage them to fight the good fight.

Here is Dan Boren's webpage w/ email link > Congressman Dan Boren : 2nd District Of Oklahoma : Four Offices to Serve You

Here is Paul Broun's webpage w/ email link > Congressman Paul Broun - Georgia's 10th Congressional District

​

For the short time it takes to write a quick email of support, it is well worth our while to send these 2 congressmen a written pat on the back for their efforts.

 

[right winger]

Dingy Harry and Queen Bee Nancy remember 1994.
And do not want a repeat. But there will be.

 

[SavageEagle]

melensdad - Thanks for catching my post. I guess I should have elaborated more on it. Thanks for posting the contact info for those two. I sent an email, but you're right. They deserve a written pat on the back!

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[finity]

I will not for one minute believe any word this man has to say. He is a democrat and therefore opposed to preserving our 2nd amendment rights. If I was in his district, I would insure that he does "not" win a re-election campaign. Sorry to be so forthcoming, but enough is enough.

Come on now. Lets use our head for a minute.

Reid has been pretty consistent in his voting record as being pro-gun. The last rating I can find for him by the NRA is a B.

Not all Democrats are anti-gun & you are being intellectually dishonest if you keep making statements like the above.

 

[Bigum1969]

Come on now. Lets use our head for a minute.

Reid has been pretty consistent in his voting record as being pro-gun. The last rating I can find for him by the NRA is a B.

Not all Democrats are anti-gun & you are being intellectually dishonest if you keep making statements like the above.

You know Finity, you are right that not all Democrats are "anti gun", at least not on paper.

But what pisses me off and keeps my blood pressure up is the liberal that is in the White House right now who has appointed folks who are ABSOLUTELY going to go after our rights. And, I'm pretty sure most of these folks are democrats.

I try not to generalize, but in this case the shoe fits. There is going to be an all-out assault on our 2nd Ammendment rights, and the Dems are going to be flying that flag front and center.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Reid has been pretty consistent in his voting record as being pro-gun. The last rating I can find for him by the NRA is a B.

Reid has also never been in the Legislative position of power that he is now in, and I think, just like I think about Obama, is that he owes many people many favors for being allowed to rise to where he currently is. Plus the negative influence on him of not following the roadmap, as the MSM recently called it, that has been layed out by Obama in his speech to Congress the other night for the Democrats to follow.

I agree that Reid could pass with a "B" grade for his voting record up until this point. His recent agreeing with Pelosi dismissing the issue of possible firearms restrictions in the form of new legislation, while AG Holder says that it will move forward, leaves me with the impression that he will follow whichever way the political wind is blowing on this issue. If Obama, Emauel, Pelosi, etc., etc., take up the challenge of restricting firearms, Reid will be quick to follow.

Politically he has no other choice that I can see. If he refuses I see a hasty public statement from Reid saying, "I am not seeking re-election" or "I am stepping down early from my post to spend more time with my grandchildren."

 

[finity]

Reid is not the only Senator who has a say about any legislation. He may have clout in the form of being the majority leader but we all know that Democrats are pretty well known for not marching in lock step with one and other. Democrats are a pretty non-conformist group (damn hippies ).

We have no reason to believe that the people who say that they are pro-gun in the rank & file are anything but what they say. They were elected because of their moderate views (ala Blue Dogs). I think, as we all have seen, that the people (even the liberal Democrats) have made it very clear that they don't want people messing with the 2A. Why else would (historically anti-gun) Pelosi make a very definitive statement against another AWB in the face of Obama's huge popularity. I don't see people changing their minds about that very easily. I think the liberals saw all the problems with the Bush administration the last 8 years & realize what could happen with an out of control government. Most liberals really do like the BoR just as much as the conservatives do (I know I'm gonna pay for that statement. Bring it on, I know its true).

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Reid is not the only Senator who has a say about any legislation.

I agree, but he is in charge of the caucus that has, IMO, rammed a couple of legislative "stinkers" down our throats since the election of Obama. If he blows the horn, theoretically the Democratic "troops" follow the call.

He may have clout in the form of being the majority leader but we all know that Democrats are pretty well known for not marching in lock step with one and other. Democrats are a pretty non-conformist group (damn hippies ).

I beg to differ again. Since the election, IIRC, all the votes have been along party lines with only one or two stragglers on either side of the aisle voting with their opposites? And yes, I realize that that means the Republicans are marching in lockstep to their own bugle call.

We have no reason to believe that the people who say that they are pro-gun in the rank & file are anything but what they say. They were elected because of their moderate views (ala Blue Dogs). I think, as we all have seen, that the people (even the liberal Democrats) have made it very clear that they don't want people messing with the 2A.

I watch the MSM in addition to conservative television, plus read a wide variety of blogs. I "hear" only two types of liberals when it comes to discussions of changes to 2A issues: Those that want a more narrow view of America's 2A rights or they do not say/write anything about it at all, hence not making their position known, which leaves me thinking that they will follow the Democratic line of thinking which is Obama's statements that he would like to see changes to the 2A.

While I don't watch every moment of tv nor read every blog written, I have not seen liberals or Democrats flying any "Don't Tread On Me" flags in protest of proposed or signed-into-law legislation that tends to infringe or outright infringes on their rights unlike what I have seen from the libertarian or Republicans.

Why else would (historically anti-gun) Pelosi make a very definitive statement against another AWB in the face of Obama's huge popularity.

Because things have not gone nearly as smoothing for Obama as was counted on by him after he was sworn in. I think he has asked those in his inner circle to slow things down a bit from his original timeline.

He has made sweeping statements that he was unable to completely follow through on (E.g. All troops out of Iraq, but now he is leaving 50,000 behind), plus the trouble he had filling out his cabinet. He has the guy, whose name escapes me at the moment, releasing to the media that the GOV is going to monitor every mile driven via GPS and tax those miles, except, OOPS! He had Obama's support of the idea and then... suddenly... he didn't.

I have another example niggling at the back of my mind at the moment but, since it is about 4:30 a.m., I can't remember what it is. I think of it later.

My point is, it just isn't time to bring up the issue of changing or limiting 2A rights.

I think the liberals saw all the problems with the Bush administration the last 8 years & realize what could happen with an out of control government. Most liberals really do like the BoR just as much as the conservatives do (I know I'm gonna pay for that statement. Bring it on, I know its true).

And so Pelosi and Reid's first acts in office were to throw out the Senate rule that the Republican's put in effect about equal time and equal input in the consideration of new legislation? That, to me, smacks of protectionism in the extreme.

 

[Hoosier8]

Pelosi make a very definitive statement against another AWB in the face of Obama's huge popularity.

Pelosi and Obama have butt heads due to O not consulting P on issues. Face it, this is a turf war and P has power no matter O's popularity, in fact, in spite of.

Not all Democrats are anti-gun

So true, and probably one of the reasons P says AWB is DOA. On Democrat boards, the fear is apparent that the AWB will be re-instated. Two reasons, one is fear of a repeat of the Republican sweep after the AWB, the other is that there are very many Democrat gun owners and they also fear an AWB for the same reason as most gun owners would and they do let their representatives know.

Right now, I don't fear the Congress passing an AWB but I do fear the executive branch entering into a treaty with Mexico. A treaty entered into by the US becomes the "Law of the land". That is a way the executive branch can circumvent the Congressional process. There is allot to fear with the move towards a "New World Order", at least for us Americans.

 

[dross]

Most liberals really do like the BoR just as much as the conservatives do (I know I'm gonna pay for that statement. Bring it on, I know its true).

Depends on what you mean by "liberals." I don't use the term much. I'm a classic liberal, or libertarian, and in France, the "liberals" are ideologically aligned with the libertarians here.

As to the Bill of Rights, I don't see the commitment from the left that you claim. They pick and choose what they like, as do the Republicans. Show me a "liberal" who loves the entire Bill of Rights and I'll show you a libertarian.

Challenge me on that, and I'll prove you wrong.

 

[Hoosier8]

Depends on what you mean by "liberals." I don't use the term much. I'm a classic liberal, or libertarian, and in France, the "liberals" are ideologically aligned with the libertarians here.

As to the Bill of Rights, I don't see the commitment from the left that you claim. They pick and choose what they like, as do the Republicans. Show me a "liberal" who loves the entire Bill of Rights and I'll show you a libertarian.

Challenge me on that, and I'll prove you wrong.

Hah, I have always called myself an old style liberal. Guess that is why I am a card carrying Libertarian.

 

[HalfGlocked]

The only reason Nancy isn't talking about taking our guns now, is because it's not time.

What would happen if there was another Katrina, or a riot, what if there is another terrorist attack?

In the News Article Eric Holder stated about the ban:
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign,"

Do you think it's not on the agenda?

As soon as the clowns on the right and the left can make a "valid argument" to the sheep, destroying the 2nd amendment will be back on the table.

 

[SirRealism]

For the short time it takes to write a quick email of support, it is well worth our while to send these 2 congressmen a written pat on the back for their efforts.

Unfortunately, Congressman Broun's site has a bug which prevents people from outside GA from contacting him via his contact form.

 

[CarmelHP]

Unfortunately, Congressman Broun's site has a bug which prevents people from outside GA from contacting him via his contact form.

Not a bug, it's a feature. There is a House rule that prohibits responding to non-constituent individuals.

 

[finity]

Depends on what you mean by "liberals." I don't use the term much. I'm a classic liberal, or libertarian, and in France, the "liberals" are ideologically aligned with the libertarians here.

As to the Bill of Rights, I don't see the commitment from the left that you claim. They pick and choose what they like, as do the Republicans. Show me a "liberal" who loves the entire Bill of Rights and I'll show you a libertarian.

Challenge me on that, and I'll prove you wrong.

That very well may be true.

I've considerd myself a left leaning person (socially liberal, economically moderate), but I believe in the entire bill of rights. I think most liberals believe in most of the BoR except for the extreme far left's disdain for the 2A. I think most conservatives believe in most of the BoR except for the far rights disdain for freedom of religion, cruel & unusual punishment & the 4A. I'm sure there are other examples but my point is, as you said, the extremes of each side has there pet rights & would like to see the others go away.

My bet there are a lot of left leaning & right leaning libertarians out there. As was mentioned in another thread, not everybody will agree with all the tenets of the libertarianism but I think that the majority or people agree with a majority of them (remember 51% is a majority). Most people in the country are centrist (moderates). Aside from their more extreme views libertarians are mostly about fairness & individuality, which I think most people agree on. I think i've said it before but, maybe we need to change the labels we use.

 

[Hoosier8]

Finity, what would be the more extreme views of Libertarians? I will hazard a guess but would like for you to chime in. My guess would be keeping the Govt in line with it's constitutional duties, read that as keeping it out of it's roll in social experimentation, and possibly legalizing marijuana. For some of my liberal friends it would the the belief in free and competitive markets and ending welfare.

Libertarian Issues and Positions --> Issues | Libertarian Party

 

[rjwin1967]

Pelosi only spoke against the AWB renewal because Holder took her for granted. She wants to make it clear that she holds the power, not him. She is no friend of the second amendment, but she remembers what happened the last time the democrats went after gun rights. They immediately lost control of the senate and house. It's not worth it to her to risk that right now. She's going to wait on a crisis. Remember Rahm Emanuel? A crises gives you an opportunity to do what you nornally could not do. If you let things get bad enough, and they get out of hand, you can take extraordinary measures. That's what they're creating. An atmosphere of panic and helplessness that will allow them to institute a socialist state. They'll masquerade it at first to look like an emergency measure, but after a while, it will become very apparent that they have gutted the constitution and remade it in their own image. Alan Keyes has a lot to say about Obama and his right to govern. He makes some very good points.

 

[dburkhead]

Pelosi only spoke against the AWB renewal because Holder took her for granted. She wants to make it clear that she holds the power, not him. She is no friend of the second amendment, but she remembers what happened the last time the democrats went after gun rights. They immediately lost control of the senate and house. It's not worth it to her to risk that right now. She's going to wait on a crisis. Remember Rahm Emanuel? A crises gives you an opportunity to do what you nornally could not do. If you let things get bad enough, and they get out of hand, you can take extraordinary measures. That's what they're creating. An atmosphere of panic and helplessness that will allow them to institute a socialist state. They'll masquerade it at first to look like an emergency measure, but after a while, it will become very apparent that they have gutted the constitution and remade it in their own image. Alan Keyes has a lot to say about Obama and his right to govern. He makes some very good points.

Actually, I think she spoke against the AWB for fear what it would cost the Democrats in 2010 as much as for Holder speaking out of turn. There's a definite "now is not the time" attitude. Our job, as supporters of the RKBA, is to keep the pressure on so that it stays "now is not the time."

I am reminded of what an individual who was in the military in Europe during the Cold War once said, "Our job was to make the Soviet generals and politicians look across the border and say, 'No, not today,' and to do that every day."

So our job is to make the Pelosis of the nation look at the support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in this country and say "no, not today" and then do it and then repeat every day, pretty much forever. It never ends. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." (Commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but there is no documentation to support that attribution. True, however, whoever originated it.)

 

[finity]

She's going to wait on a crisis. Remember Rahm Emanuel? A crises gives you an opportunity to do what you nornally could not do. If you let things get bad enough, and they get out of hand, you can take extraordinary measures. That's what they're creating.

Oh you mean, like, the way the old administration talked us into attacking Iraq?

I'm sure you people here have heard of "The Project For THe New American Century. These are those Neo-cons that you use to hear so much about, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Cambone, most of the upper echelon of the first Bush admin.

They released a report that basically outlined their plans for projecting American power into the Middle-East, specifically Iraq & Iran. They knew that the American people & our allies would have a real problem with just attacking a foreign country, unprovoked.

From PNACs report:

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a​

new Pearl Harbor.

The interesting thing was that the report was released in 2000. It sure was a good thing for their goals that 9-11 (or should I say "Pearl Harbor 2.0"?) fell right into their laps, isn't it?

If you have any evidence that's what is happening, I'll be glad to join in calling for their removal from office (which is more than most conservatives did). Until then you need to add another layer of foil.