PDA

View Full Version : Who is the 2A champion in Congress?!


Marthor
01-09-2013, 10:06 AM
I can tell you who the "elected" gun control champions are...
Obama, Biden, Feinstein

Supposedly, most of congress is pro-2A, but they're all being pretty quiet with an interview or comment here and there, but no one is stepping up to CHAMPION the 2A.

We need an elected member of congress to step up an be the champion now!

I want Senator X and Congressman Y to step up. We need this! :oji:

AnthonyD1978
01-09-2013, 10:27 AM
Used to be Ron Paul....too bad he just retired.

bwiese
01-09-2013, 10:43 AM
I can tell you who the "elected" gun control champions are...
Obama, Biden, Feinstein

Supposedly, most of congress is pro-2A, but they're all being pretty quiet with an interview or comment here and there, but no one is stepping up to CHAMPION the 2A.

We need an elected member of congress to step up an be the champion now!

I want Senator X and Congressman Y to step up. We need this! :oji:

Please use some thought. I don't think you know how things really work.

Coming out waving the flag is not helpful and probably unhelpful - and is usu from the guys wanting PR instead of getting work done. Also some Congressmen like to drive 'puff piece' bills for their own PR that have no chance of passage but get lots of attaboys from the nonanalytical.

Quiet work in the back rooms stalling/diverting things is far better.

[In California we've actually gotten more work done by certain legislators that feel they have to vote anti but will mark up a bill to make it unusable (see: microstamping). Meanwhile we have CA GOP idiots jumping up & down who can't get anything thru committtee - and yet the CA GOP infrastructure is mad at NRA & CRPA reps for going to pro-gun dems to carry bills (like SB610 carry reform).

bwiese
01-09-2013, 10:45 AM
Used to be Ron Paul....too bad he just retired.

No. Ron Paul did not carry any useful bills to fruition. He had some puff piece stuff that wouldn't pass.

Paul VOTED AGAINST the PLCAA in 2005 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) because of some 'purity' grounds - and this was before Heller/McDonald when we needed anything we could get to save the industry from collapsing in lawsuits. I have utter disdain for impractical pie-in-the-sky people that risk harming us for poseur reasons.

MuddvilleHustler
01-09-2013, 11:02 AM
Will the real Slim Shaddy please stand up.

Marthor
01-09-2013, 2:26 PM
Please use some thought. I don't think you know how things really work...

Quiet work in the back rooms stalling/diverting things is far better...

I totally disagree.
The champion should be pushing the end of "gun free" zones as a primary issue since it is a root cause of most of the mass shootings. Good leadership is better than relying on backroom stalling.

The champion should be giving them hell.

Helpful_Cub
01-09-2013, 2:37 PM
Honestly with the media the way it is. Anyone that stands up on this issue will get shot down in the media. So I agree, backrooms are how things will and are done.

Marthor
01-09-2013, 2:44 PM
Honestly with the media the way it is. Anyone that stands up on this issue will get shot down in the media. So I agree, backrooms are how things will and are done.


Where is our guy to risk his neck?! They are all afraid of standing up to the media?

berto
01-09-2013, 2:48 PM
The ones that vote NO on whatever legislation is coming. Action not grandstanding.

philobeddoe
01-09-2013, 3:01 PM
Steve Stockman (R-TX), HR 35 Safe Schools Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Paul Broun (R-GA).

Thomas Massie (R-KY), HR 133 A bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

Marthor
01-09-2013, 3:02 PM
The ones that vote NO on whatever legislation is coming. Action not grandstanding.

Oh, I agree on action and not grandstanding.

The champion should be running with the ball. There should be bills introduced.

1) National Right to Carry
2) End "Gun Free" Zones to stop schools, theatres and churches from being the target
3) Tazers for Teachers

We need a champion kicking some arse. Not, oh, we think we have the votes to quietly do nothing and we'll just sit back and take the blame from Obama for doing nothing. The champion needs to be showing the way and actually make a real difference to make schools safer.

AnthonyD1978
01-09-2013, 4:07 PM
No. Ron Paul did not carry any useful bills to fruition. He had some puff piece stuff that wouldn't pass.

Paul VOTED AGAINST the PLCAA in 2005 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) because of some 'purity' grounds - and this was before Heller/McDonald when we needed anything we could get to save the industry from collapsing in lawsuits. I have utter disdain for impractical pie-in-the-sky people that risk harming us for poseur reasons.

That's because that act is outside the bounds of the federal government. He supported the idea behind it, but not the federal backing of the law.

The fact that most of congress did not support his bills makes him a winner in my book. I guess if they pass a bill it must mean the congressman that proposed it must be a good congressman....or maybe that congressman serves good kool-aid...:confused:

EDIT:
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.

It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not — the implications are preposterous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.

In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

gotshotgun?
01-09-2013, 4:42 PM
^ right on

nicki
01-09-2013, 4:46 PM
The truth is how people vote versus how the media want them to vote often are two different things.

Examples: In 1982, the media predicted that California would lead the nation in getting rid of handguns (Prop15), their polls were showing it winning 2 to 1.

Problem was in 19882 prop 15 failed by a 2 to 1 margin.

1n 1994, the Congress passed the Fed AW ban that had a 10 year sunset clause, the American people sunseted the Democrats the next election and gave controll to the republicans for the first time in 40 years.

In 2004, the Federal AW bill expired and the media outed all the republicans who let this legislation die, pretty much all of them were re elected to office.

The Democratic party has made gains since 2006 because gun rights was not a major national issue.

After Heller and MacDonald, the gun issue for the most part was a non-issue for most Americans and many Democrats ran on a pro-gun platform all across the country.

Now what we have is the Dems and the Libtard Elite just going on a "frenzy", they are literally foaming out of their mouths and saying some really stupid things.

They have gone from the point of appearing reasonable to appearing unhinged.

Congress moves at the speed of a geriatric turtle, there won't be any votes for months.

In the meantime, people are calming down, they want rational discussion and solutions, not feel good measures.

Overall America's gun owners have been very apathetic, well those gun owners and gun owner wannabe's just got a rude awakening.

Think of it this way, you see a big grizzly bear that is sound asleep and is ready to wake up from his winter sleep. Do you think it would be smart to walk behind that bear and kick him in his ***s?:eek:

That is what our opponents did.

Our republican gun rights leaders are paying attention to their phones, their e mails and their letters.

Once some actual legislation is proposed, our champions will emerge.

Sen Ted Cruz from Texas and Sen Rand Paul for Kentucky would be the two US Senators I could see leading the charge since they are principled.

Many others will quietly vote with us.
Our view here in California is clouded because we are deep in enemy territory.

Nicki

stix213
01-09-2013, 4:50 PM
That's because that act is outside the bounds of the federal government. He supported the idea behind it, but not the federal backing of the law.

The fact that most of congress did not support his bills makes him a winner in my book. I guess if they pass a bill it must mean the congressman that proposed it must be a good congressman....or maybe that congressman serves good kool-aid...:confused:

EDIT:
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.

It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not the implications are preposterous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.

In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Basically Ron Paul thinks 2A legislation is a states rights issue. That line of reasoning is why we have a litany of firearm and carry bans at the state level when the 2A being in the federal constitution makes this a federal issue.

I'm sorry to say that on the 2A issues we face, Ron Paul was actually part of the problem and opposed to the solution.

stix213
01-09-2013, 4:51 PM
I have high hopes for Ted Cruz by the way. He claimed in a recent interview he is going to lead the charge against a federal gun ban bill.

SDBlaster
01-09-2013, 5:17 PM
I like Ron Paul's son Rand Paul . He seemed to be one of the only politicains against the NDAA. I'm sure he will continue in his fathers libertarian tradition.

AnthonyD1978
01-09-2013, 6:54 PM
Basically Ron Paul thinks 2A legislation is a states rights issue. That line of reasoning is why we have a litany of firearm and carry bans at the state level when the 2A being in the federal constitution makes this a federal issue.

I'm sorry to say that on the 2A issues we face, Ron Paul was actually part of the problem and opposed to the solution.

Lol ok.

Oneaudiopro
01-09-2013, 6:57 PM
I can tell you who the "elected" gun control champions are...
Obama, Biden, Feinstein

Supposedly, most of congress is pro-2A, but they're all being pretty quiet with an interview or comment here and there, but no one is stepping up to CHAMPION the 2A.

We need an elected member of congress to step up an be the champion now!

I want Senator X and Congressman Y to step up. We need this! :oji:

I love this

Gray Peterson
01-09-2013, 7:13 PM
I have high hopes for Ted Cruz by the way. He claimed in a recent interview he is going to lead the charge against a federal gun ban bill.

When Senator Cruz was Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, he wrote this:

Texas Solicitor General Brief on behalf of Heller, Texas and 30 other states. (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacTexas.pdf)

mmbasser
01-09-2013, 8:22 PM
When Senator Cruz was Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, he wrote this:

Texas Solicitor General Brief on behalf of Heller, Texas and 30 other states. (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacTexas.pdf)


Uh, crib notes?

Gray Peterson
01-09-2013, 8:30 PM
Uh, crib notes?

His amicus was extremely important in that DC was arguing for a "state militia" collective rights argument. If 31 states say that 2A is not for their militias and national guard units.......

solipsist
01-09-2013, 8:46 PM
I can tell you who the "elected" gun control champions are...
Obama, Biden, Feinstein

Supposedly, most of congress is pro-2A, but they're all being pretty quiet with an interview or comment here and there, but no one is stepping up to CHAMPION the 2A.

We need an elected member of congress to step up an be the champion now!

I want Senator X and Congressman Y to step up. We need this! :oji:

I'm only going to tell you all this once. Whoever your Congressman is won't matter. It only matters if you make your voice heard.

If you don't do that, you can have the greatest 100 pro-gun congressmen in the world and we will get our buts kicked every time.

Sitting back and depending on "Congressman X" to "save us" won't do a darn thing. That is way different than maybe giving a contribution or volunteering for someone that you want see get elected.

The "magic number" for most decently organized congressional offices is 50 people within the district sending legitimate correspondence to raise an issue.

You need to call, write a one page double-spaced letter, and even e-mail. But calling and written letters take precedent.

When you call and give your name, address, phone and other info. When you write do the same. If you are in their district, (or state if it is a Senator) they will take you a lot more seriously.

Be very polite and tell them what bills you (and your family and friends) oppose. Again, be very polite, most offices will hear you out.

If they start getting hundreds of calls, letters, and e-mails per-day, these bad bills will be dead before they even get a vote.

Write, call, and e-mail, NOW!

- Phil W.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Capitol Operator: (202) 224-3121

bubbapug1
01-09-2013, 9:19 PM
Even though the media is playing this out to be a slam dunk, I also hear a lot of blowback too.

I have strangers engage me at the grocery store, school yards, post office, and the consensus seems to be why punish legal gun owners for the acts of three mad men. Not everyone is buying off on the rush to judgement. This is classic Obama...don't waste a good crisis...very cynical of him, and in many places its not flying. Remember, he only won by 2%,

I am planning for the worst, but also feel the more radical aspects of the bills being proposed will eventually become DOA.

bubbapug1
01-09-2013, 9:19 PM
Even though the media is playing this out to be a slam dunk, I also hear a lot of blowback too.

I have strangers engage me at the grocery store, school yards, post office, and the consensus seems to be why punish legal gun owners for the acts of three mad men. Not everyone is buying off on the rush to judgement. This is classic Obama...don't waste a good crisis...very cynical of him, and in many places its not flying. Remember, he only won by 2%,

I am planning for the worst, but also feel the more radical aspects of the bills being proposed will eventually become DOA.

Marthor
01-09-2013, 9:45 PM
Write, call, and e-mail, NOW!

Here's what we're up against though. Obama has said he's going to put his full weight behind passing this.

It's like Rahm Emanuel's stab the table with a knife and yell "dead" as he said each Democrat's name that didn't fall in line. It's Chicago-style mafia politics ahead with Obama holding a blowtorch under every Democrat's behind. They won't care how many people mailed them a letter when Obama is extorting, bribing, kickback deals and/or threatening them.

Emailing, letters and everything certainly won't hurt, but Obama's Chicago-mafia pressure will carry more weight on the Dems to fall in line.

Cactus Fire
01-10-2013, 8:11 PM
We certainly wouldn't be worrying about our 2A rights had we been "ALL IN" for Ron Paul.

Luieburger
01-10-2013, 8:43 PM
We certainly wouldn't be worrying about our 2A rights had we been "ALL IN" for Ron Paul.

I agree, but that opportunity has passed now. We have to deal with the present. Hopefully the GOP learns from its mistakes in the future, but right now we have an impending crisis and a lot of work to do to stop it from happening.