pyzik 597 Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 do reiterate from the S12 section, and for those of you that may not see it... heres what I wrote to MY representative... I am writing in regards to H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes. I cannot stress enough the absurdity of such legislation! Not only is it a DIRECT VIOLATION of the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and the 2nd amendment, it will do absolutely nothing to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of those intent on commiting crimes with those weapons. Legal firearm owners are the only ones that such a bill will affect if passed. Allow me to remind you of something one of our founding fatehers and former presidents of the United States had to say about banning firearms: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson I urge you, to vote AGAINST this "knee jerk" reaction, as well as ALL future firearm restriction bills. This type of legislation is NO DIFFERENT than stating that we need to BAN all AUTOMOBILES to stop the DWI related deaths that happen each year. Those figures I am sure, far exceed the number of fatalities to firearms related incidents annually. As a member of this United States Government it is your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and its amendments. Your constituents have entrusted that you will do what is right. Please do not allow yourself to violate that trust, and violate the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, by voting in favor of another unconstitutional, and UN-AMERICAN bill! Thank you, Sincerely, Mike Indelicato again... heres to hoping... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JWarren 0 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Edited February 15, 2007 by JWarren Quote Link to post Share on other sites
macbeau 902 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) It's kinda like blaming the frame because the art contained in it is bad... Self reliance, people - self reliance... THE STATE IS NOT THERE TO PROTECT YOU! ...But, I am preaching to the chior... Macbeau sends.... Edited February 15, 2007 by macbeau Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aurbis 1 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 John, your letter was very succint and to the point. I love it. Congressman Bill Young, and a few others, will be receiving both an email and phone call about this shortly. Here is my email, an IndyArms production, Version 1.1 I am writing to you in regards to "H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." If put into legislation, this ban will do absolutely nothing to deter criminals from such actions as those that originally invoked this proposal: A man shooting innocent people with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle. This could just have easily occurred with a handgun, which is also happens to be very easily concealed and maneuvered. Would the appropriate response to that have been a proposed ban on all handguns? Automatic weapons (the real 'assault weapons') are already illegal. This bill proposes to ban semi-automatic weapons, no different in function from a hunting rifle legally owned by both you and I. The term 'assault weapon' has no concrete definition; it is an ever-changing, blanket term. For example, the definition of assault weapon was changed after the introduction of the original AWB (Assault Weapon Ban) in order to ban semi-automatic rifles that even LOOKED like their automatic counterparts, never mind the extensive mechanical differences between the two. Once stripped of its' cosmetic features, a semi-automatic 'assault rifle' rifle has more in common with an ordinary hunting rifle than it does an automatic weapon. Do you not agree that a law should specifically define the item which it wishes to consider illegal? Do you also find it absurd for the government to ban a weapon based solely on COSMETIC reasons? Almost all murders are committed with guns that are obtained illegally. Even if ALL guns were outlawed, people would STILL be killed by criminals that would STILL get guns illegally. The thing about a criminal is: they do not follow the law, that is why they are considered a criminal! If a criminal wanted to illegally obtain any type of weapon, be it automatic, semi-automatic, a weapon of mass destruction, they will do so with 100% complete disregard for the laws which they are defying. The only thing this AWB will change is the fact that law-abiding Americans will no longer be legally allowed to own these semi-automatic rifles. These are law-abiding citizens that had absolutely no intention of using them for criminal purposes in the first place. The only persons who will own such a rifle will be, get this, CRIMINALS. Yes, that is correct. Criminals will not stop illegally purchasing these rifles, or any other weapon, just because a law passed saying not to. I feel this quote sums it up nicely: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson The truth is, if a criminal wants a type of weapon badly enough, no law will stop them from obtaining and using said weapon. This proposed bill will have zero impact on criminals and firearm-related crime, just as the original AWB failed to have any impact. I urge you, to vote against this "knee jerk" reaction, as well as all future firearm restriction bills. This type of legislation is NO DIFFERENT than stating that we need to ban all AUTOMOBILES in order to stop DWI related deaths that happen each year (DWI related death figures far exceed the number of fatalities due to firearm related incidents annually). As a member of this United States Government, it is your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and its' amendments. Your constituents have entrusted that you will do what is right. Please do not allow yourself to violate that trust, and violate the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, by voting in favor of another unconstitutional, and UN-AMERICAN bill! Sincerely, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 If they want to take away my rifle they can, but they MUST guaranty my safety at all times. So to that end I will hand my saiga conversion over when I get my government funded security detail of at least three heavily armed secret service agents, just like she gets! If the government does not want to pay to protect me at all hours of the day, they can leave me keep my rifle so I can do the job myself. Sound fair? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MD_Willington 11 Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I wrote my rep as well... WA State is trying to pass all manner of crap firearms laws, except for my local reps (East side, not the weiners on the west side), they don't support any of that crap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bvamp 604 Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 as was said, it is technically the law that you should keep and bear arms and ample munitions for it/them if you are an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. ive said it numerous times, thanks for the quote from the book of us code that i didnt want to go dig through any more. Im not guaranteed protection by the state or federal government. it is not one of your rights. so why would I want to leave myself OUTGUNNED especially now that we have a jihad declared against us all and the fact that there are other issues that are a real and current threat to all of us? simply put, I WONT. I will refuse to hand anything I have over, at any time, to anyone. if there are consequences, I will deal with them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I will not tolerate the status of "criminal" by only the stroke of a pen at the end of an evil hand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
macbeau 902 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Just remember... Every war that this country has ever fought with itself has been over a "property rights" issue and/or combined with the exceess of the government in power.... Just FYI... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SpicyMchaggis 0 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 do reiterate from the S12 section, and for those of you that may not see it... heres what I wrote to MY representative... I am writing in regards to H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes. I cannot stress enough the absurdity of such legislation! Not only is it a DIRECT VIOLATION of the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and the 2nd amendment, it will do absolutely nothing to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of those intent on commiting crimes with those weapons. Legal firearm owners are the only ones that such a bill will affect if passed. Allow me to remind you of something one of our founding fatehers and former presidents of the United States had to say about banning firearms: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson I urge you, to vote AGAINST this "knee jerk" reaction, as well as ALL future firearm restriction bills. This type of legislation is NO DIFFERENT than stating that we need to BAN all AUTOMOBILES to stop the DWI related deaths that happen each year. Those figures I am sure, far exceed the number of fatalities to firearms related incidents annually. As a member of this United States Government it is your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and its amendments. Your constituents have entrusted that you will do what is right. Please do not allow yourself to violate that trust, and violate the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, by voting in favor of another unconstitutional, and UN-AMERICAN bill! Thank you, Sincerely, Mike Indelicato again... heres to hoping... Hey Indy, you might want to run a spell check through that next time. Not trying to be a dick. Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uzitiger 193 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Had someone been armed on the Long Island train then Carolyn McCarthy's husband might have survived the anti white racist murder rampage. Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady are both anti gun opportunists who want to disarm us to make headlines. They use their husbands' tragic attacks as excuses to disarm us. Now that the DemonRats control Congress they'll try to disarm us like they did in New York City. They swear to uphold the US Constitution while taking away our bill of rights. Make sure you vote against Hitlery Clinton in 2008 or we'll see Waco style raids on our homes to confiscate our guns and incinerate our children after they ban our guns. The attack in Salt Lake City was perpetrated by a Bosnian Muslim who wanted to murder infidels for his false allah and that was his motive. The liberal press pretend to be baffled about his motives which are Islamic fanaticism and nothing else. Had the perpetrator been a white supremacist they would have spent months talking about it instead of a few words. Look at what they did with the DC sniper before he was caught, Charles Moose the inept affirmative action police chief kept saying it was a white gun man while it was two black homosexual Muslims who committed the atrocities. DemocRats will use any excuse to disarm us and make us more vulnerable to Islamic terrorism with their sympathetic anti gun lackeys in the press. Edited February 17, 2007 by uzitiger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red Jacket 329 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 I've written this lady and told her that in my opinion , the only realistic solution to this type violence is an across the board ban on murder . I feel that we should do everything in our power to make murder illegal . Furthermore , when someone commits murder , they should be not only arrested but also sentanced , and serve the full term of thier sentance . We must close the "murder loophole" in our laws which allow people to just kill anybody they feel like , whenever they want to . I'm not sure how this loophole has gone unnoticed for so long when it is so obvious that a simple law flatly banning all murders would end this problem with unsolicited death once and for all . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Amen, Will... AMEN!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SpicyMchaggis 0 Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 I've written this lady and told her that in my opinion , the only realistic solution to this type violence is an across the board ban on murder . I feel that we should do everything in our power to make murder illegal . Furthermore , when someone commits murder , they should be not only arrested but also sentanced , and serve the full term of thier sentance . We must close the "murder loophole" in our laws which allow people to just kill anybody they feel like , whenever they want to . I'm not sure how this loophole has gone unnoticed for so long when it is so obvious that a simple law flatly banning all murders would end this problem with unsolicited death once and for all . I'm not sure what are you talking about. While I do support harder penalties for murder, that doesn't help prevention. They could honestly make any murder offense an automatic death sentence and that still would of not prevented what happened in Utah. The armed assailant throws their life away well before they ever put their plan into motion and there is very little anyone can do to prevent someone repeating what happened there. Politicians like to believe that the only way to prevent these incidents is to get the assault weapons from private citizens. Never going to happen, not in our lifetime anyway. Bottom line, they need to drop the assault weapon ban and focus on putting more well-trained response officers on the street. Train them for urban terror threats and arm them accordingly. Start opening lines of communication between the local cops on the beat and government level FBI offices. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red Jacket 329 Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hey Kyle , I was being a smartassedly ironic , or maybe facitious [i get them mixed up] . People who confuse cause and effect or tools with intent tend to bore me . So I like to fuck with them . I also like to write them 3 page diatrides demanding the immediate banning of all 4 wheeled rolling weapons of mass destruction [for the children] whenever they bring up bullshit like this proposed ban . I do know this . as a free American I have the right to do whatever the government that rules me decides I will do . I am free to protest in whatever form that has prior approval . I can travel anywhere I am allowed by the Justice dept to go . I can buy anything they havn't decided isn't bad for me. In short , I realize that I have the right to shut up do as I'm told . I have one lonely vote which I'm not so confident in and the ability to write a letter that may have to be read 3 time's before the recipiant realized I called them a fucktard . You use what you got. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ironhead7544 35 Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 When someone starts on banning guns I remind them of the guy in New York that killed 94 people with a dollars worth of gasoline. His exgirlfriend and her new boyfriend were in a niteclub. Since he didnt have a gun (he was an illegal alien) he went to a gas station and bought some gas. Threw it in the front door of the club and lit it off. The club had a problem with people sneaking in so all but one door was padlocked. The intended victims escaped. I think it would have been better if the perp had a 25 auto or an AK47. Would have been less death. People who want to kill can come up with a way to do it regardless of laws. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skyugo 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 the obvious answer here is to get more law abiding citizens carrying legal concealed handguns. ps-didn't that kid in philly with the AK47 only shoot himself? he coulda done the same thing with a .22.... i don't really see where the AK47 really comes into making this crime what it was. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pyzik 597 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Hey Kyle , I was being a smartassedly ironic , or maybe facitious [i get them mixed up] . People who confuse cause and effect or tools with intent tend to bore me . So I like to fuck with them . I also like to write them 3 page diatrides demanding the immediate banning of all 4 wheeled rolling weapons of mass destruction [for the children] whenever they bring up bullshit like this proposed ban . I do know this . as a free American I have the right to do whatever the government that rules me decides I will do . I am free to protest in whatever form that has prior approval . I can travel anywhere I am allowed by the Justice dept to go . I can buy anything they havn't decided isn't bad for me. In short , I realize that I have the right to shut up do as I'm told . I have one lonely vote which I'm not so confident in and the ability to write a letter that may have to be read 3 time's before the recipiant realized I called them a fucktard . You use what you got. lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bernerz 11 Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 I looked online about this lady. If you look in the list of campaign contributors you will see one is a lobby for malpractice attorneys. These guys don't want a cap on how much one can collect from medical malpractice. Mccarthy was a nurse! To those in the medical field this is like sleeping with the enemy! I think this just shows what kind of a person McCarthy is. That and right after she introduced that knee-jerk piece of shit legislation she also voted to condemn the troop surge. I feel sorry for the folks that live in New York (not New York City). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shaneman153a 39 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) So, for us young guys who either were too young to remember the AWB or didn't collect during the AWB, what's the bottom line here? I read the full text, but I have some questions. I saw the grandfather provision, will the shit I already own be grandfathered in, or will they come try to take it away? What happens to the shit on the shelves of gun stores right now? Can it be transferred? Can I stock up? If my stuff is grandfathered in, can I still posess mags for it? Can I still shoot it at a range? Should I just coat it in cosmoline and bury it in my backyard for when the SHTF? Guess I'm gonna have to get big into Kar98's and Mosin Nagants. Mother Fuck! Sorry I'm not being proactive in writing my congressman, but I vote in Pierce County Washington, and truthfully it's just not worth the effort. I think I will steal Indy's letter and send it off, maybe it will trigger some common sense over there in lala land (Western Washington, I am stationed in Texas but still vote there.) What if after this ban, 90% of citizens obtained CC licences. That would scare the living shit out of them............. edit: Disregard all fellas - I just read all my answers in a parallel thread. Holy shit, this fuckin sucks! Edited February 21, 2007 by shaneman153a Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deamon 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I'm stocking right now as we speak, parts, mags and ammunition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SpicyMchaggis 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Hey Kyle , I was being a smartassedly ironic , or maybe facitious [i get them mixed up] . People who confuse cause and effect or tools with intent tend to bore me . So I like to fuck with them . I also like to write them 3 page diatrides demanding the immediate banning of all 4 wheeled rolling weapons of mass destruction [for the children] whenever they bring up bullshit like this proposed ban . I do know this . as a free American I have the right to do whatever the government that rules me decides I will do . I am free to protest in whatever form that has prior approval . I can travel anywhere I am allowed by the Justice dept to go . I can buy anything they havn't decided isn't bad for me. In short , I realize that I have the right to shut up do as I'm told . I have one lonely vote which I'm not so confident in and the ability to write a letter that may have to be read 3 time's before the recipiant realized I called them a fucktard . You use what you got. To achieve the results you desire, you may which to develop a stronger sense of grammar an punctuation. So, by the third time they've read your nonsensical parade of words, they actually understand what you were trying to say in the first place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MD_Willington 11 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Here's a couple I pieced together from a few places I visit online, mainly THR etcetera.. Yep, pretty much stole these from online, mixed things up a bit, added a few lines... Contact everyone on the Judiciary committee with one of these form letters... For the Dems: ie scare them about loosing their new positions. Your Honor, Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. This is regarding my OPPOSITION to H.R. 1022, to re-authorize the federal "Assault Weapons Ban". President William Clinton credited the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 and the NRA action following its passage as being in large part responsible for the Democratic losses in the following elections. This put the House and Senate solidly in Republican hands for 12 years. Is a new Assault Weapons Ban worth possibly sacrificing all the gains the Democrats made in the 2006 elections? With this in mind, please try to keep this legislation from moving out of committee." I would greatly appreciate any effort you could make to encourage your peers on the Judiciary Committee to oppose this legislation. Thank you again for the continued work, and the honor of your time. Sincerely, For the Repubs Your Honor; Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. It has been recently brought to my attention that a bill to reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) has been recently been introduced and or brought into committee by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. H.R. 1022, is a renewal of the old Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, it is my sincere hope that you will oppose this bill. I do not believe I need to tell you of the affront this bill is to the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I stand firmly against the piecemeal erosion of ALL the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, even if lawmakers show some perceived benefit in the form of greater security. As one who firmly believes in the right to keep and bear arms, I would greatly appreciate your support in ensuring that the bill H.R. 1022 does not leave the committee, and if it does come to a vote that you do everything in your power to defeat it. Thank you again for the continued work, and the honor of your time. Sincerely, Edited February 21, 2007 by MD_Willington Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.