[url=www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,555387,00.html]Groups Seek Tougher Assault-Weapons Ban[/url]

Now is NOT the time to relax.

Where are the AR15 manufacturers in all this?  A unified front should start with their activities and we follow suit.  Of course, I'll send letters and such, but I think we should start another page on this site dedicated for form letters for our elected officials and other stuff beneficial to our right.  Anyone willing to work on such a page?  We need to take every relevant fact and put it there so our letters can cite to specific congressional hearings in 1994 and the lack of the use of these guns in recent years.  

So where do we start?

I think the anti-gunners have an up-hill battle, considering the blowout in the previous election, plus the defeat of Al Gore in 2000. It is obvious that the 2nd Amend. issues is a big concern among a lot of people. But the pro-gunners should be vigilant, you never know, our friends could be our enemies at the drop of the hat, witness Geo. Bush Sr, and former Calif. Gov. Geo. Deukmejian who brought us the origina calif. AW ban.

NEVER let your guard down....

Don't be too sure.  Now that the Republicans have power, they are not likely to endanger their position.  They are likely to keep the status quo and simply ammend the current bill and kill the sunset, or permenantly enact an identical replacement.  

Keep in mind that most gun folks still see AWs as expendable to keep their glocks and brownings.  For every 1 AW supporter the'll lose, they dont alienate 5 soccer moms who voted Republican for the first time.

I think having a dedicated pin up thread for form letters etc. on this subject would be of excellant benefit to us all and others. THe added benefit is it would show the congress critters that we are awake and watching them.

Balzac said:
We need to take every relevant fact and put it there so our letters can cite to specific congressional hearings in 1994 and the lack of the use of these guns in recent years.

The lack of use of these guns in RECENT years is not the most important thing, Its the complete lack of use of these rifles at all over the last 30 years and the lack of need for the AW ban in the first place, criminals are not using them more or less as they didn't use them in the first place (check FBI stats=way under 1%) We need to have our ducks in a row here. The folks in the Fifty Caliber class need to understand that they are the target this time around and so are the manufacturer's as the only way to strengthen the bill is to ban thier manufacture in the future, ala FOPA in 86.
Let's get the facts and sources down perfectly and those who wish proffer form letters for review. Together we can fashion a campaign to get the Congress to do the right  thing or at least we will have done our part regardless of the outcome.

Mark

As the last poster stated, is it critically important to not include recent statistics on lack of use of AWs in crimes.  If I was debating you on the other side, I'd have your lunch.  Why, because "Well one of the reasons few have been used is the lack of their availability caused by the ban itself."  Do not open yourself to this rebuttal!!!

Focus on Hollywood hysteria, cosmetics, and Clintonesque politicing instead of crime prevention as reasons why the original was enacted in the first place.

Then focus on the '89 Bush put in place by the former drug czar getting his panties in a wad...

I agree with the statement that the gun control groups are going to have an uphill battle.  And again as stated before, I belive that we should be ever vigilant.  We need to make the republican party know WHY they won the 2000, and 2002 elections.  And that if this ban gets renewed they will be SOL ($H!T outta luck) and SOV ($H!T outta votes) from the gun right community.

[/red]

So I guess everyone in US-SOCOM is a murdering Muslim homeless extortionist at heart since they have a weapon with this "silhouette"?!?  What profound cluelessness... [:(]

You mean it [red][b]FAILED[/b] f@ckers!!!![/red]

Of f@cking course it fell short of its "original goals"... Its original goals were to [b]BAN ALL GUNS!!![/b] and this was one step along the way.



"original intent"?! - F@CK YOU BITCH!! Try learning about the "original intent" of the 2nd Amendment! [pissed]



I can't believe my f@cking eyes!!! What the F@CK did she just say?!?!

The sniper chose a gun that LOOKS like a military gun so we should now ban guns based on their LOOKS!!!?!?!?!

The sniper (who HIDES from view) chose a scary-looking gun even though he never intended to show it while committing crimes?!?!?!!



WTF!!!?!?

So now they don't even want Bushmaster to ADVERTISE that their guns are LEGAL!!!!

They think it's wrong to say this gun is approved by the BATF!?!?!



[b]MOLON LABE BITCH, MOLON LABE!!!!!![/b]

[XX(][heavy]




[b]Guys, this is it. THIS is MY line in the sand.[/b]

Mark this thread.

If this becomes the next Assault Weapon Ban... Civil Disobediance. I will refuse.

Have you EVER seen such sheer irrational IDIOCY and such blatant, outright, unabashed attack on the 2nd amendment before????



These people are shoveling so many lies, so many irrational arguments, so many backwards, baseless, illogical and utterly idiotic opinions...

Guys - if we can't defeat these people, if we can't stop this from becoming law - if this CRAP gets through Congress, it's war.




[red][b]Never Forget...[/b][/red]

[b]"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."[/b] ~ Sen. Diane Feinstein D-CA, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

[b]"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"[/b] ~ Rep. Charles Schumer D-NY, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93

[b]"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments."[/b] ~ James Brady.

[b]"The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."[/b] ~ Sarah Brady.

[b]"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."[/b] ~ Janet Reno.

[b]"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"[/b] ~ Bill Clinton, interview on MTV 1993

[b]"We cannot be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."[/b] ~ Bill Clinton, USA Today 1993.

[b]"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"[/b] ~ Rep. Henry Waxman, D-NY, 5/2001 MSNBC report on .50BMG rifles.

Macallan,

I agree with you 100%.  Draw a line in the sand, guys.  

We need to be agressive and speak our minds.  We need to do the research, find the facts, and make them available so we can write our well-informed and FACTUAL letters to our congressmen and representatives.  We need to stay on the asses of our political groups, such as the NRA, GOA and State organizations and loudly tell them that we need to vehemantly oppose any new legislation.

Facts will be our ammunition.  Our letters will be our well placed shots, and our vigiliance will be our strength.  

MOLON LABE!!!

Here is my "Gee, I am just a sportsman" letter to my congressmen and senators, if anyone NOT FROM UTAH wants to copy it:

As you are probably aware, the ban on “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines is set to expire in the fall of 2004.   My purpose in writing this letter is to inquire whether you will vote to extend this law.

I enjoy target shooting, but it has become frustrating because I seem to spend half of my time at the range loading magazines.  The 30 round magazines for my .22 should cost about $10, but the “pre-ban” models now cost as much as $100.  So I am stuck with 10 round magazines, and they are not any cheaper than the 30 round magazines should be.  The problem is even worse with pistols.  

These “high capacity” magazines are not valuable to criminals; I have read that the average gunfight lasts only three second with three shots fired.

The limitations on rifles are equally idiotic.  I have one compact rifle that I like to carry around on the 4-wheeler for plinking and in case I see a coyote or other varmint.  I would very much like to place a folding stock on that rifle to make it easier to carry.  I would also like to put a flash suppressor on it, because it is very loud (it has a fairly short barrel).  But the law prohibits me from doing either of these things.  There is simply no reason for this.  Neither of these features will make the rifle more valuable to a criminal; it will still be too big to conceal with a folding stock and even with the flash suppressor the report can still be heard and seen from miles away.  While there are other features the law prohibits such as bayonet lugs that probably have very little utility, the lug is hardly a feature that a criminal will find useful either.  I have not heard of any convenience store clerks getting bayoneted lately.

Thank you for responding to my inquiry.

Respectfully Yours,

imposter

imposter, I like your letter, but have to point out that a flash suppressor does not reduce noise.  In fact, if it reduced the sound of the discharge of the firearm, it would become a silencer and subject to the National Firearms Act.

When you send a letter to an elected official who is a Democrat, be sure to ask the following question:

[size=4]The Democratic Party lost control of Congress in 1994 because of its gun control laws, including the Assault Weapons ban.  Does the Democratic Party wish to remain in the minority indefinitely?  If Yes, then it should work to reauthorize the Assault Weapons ban.[/size=4]

If reason and logic don't get their attention, perhaps raw electoral fear might.  There are a large number of very close electoral races.  They can't afford to alienate gun owners, who tend to be very motivated.

It was a president that was fooling around with every woman except his wife that wanted the "Assault Weapons Ban".  He had to insure his safety while he was fooling around!

You center-punched that one.  

The R's haven't exactly been working at dismanteling the unconstitutional gun laws. I trust politicians to work toward staying in office, and that's about it. We need to defeat any AWB.

It won't be the DemocRATs who pass this.

This will be a defining moment for the Republicans AND the NRA.



This "losing issue" won big in 1994.



I agree.

For this, I'm putting all I can into fighting it.

I will do ALL I can to stop this - to convince my Reps and Senators and anyone else that will listen that the "Assault Weapon Ban" goes against ALL the facts, statistics, history and reason and is NOT backed by ANY Constititutional principle or by ANY of the SCOTUS RKBA decisions like [i]Miller[/i] or [i]Lewis[/i] or even the lower court [i]Emerson[/i] ruling.

Like I said - I'll do anything I can to stop this.

THIS is my line in the sand... I'm choosing THIS as my hill.

We are halfway towards defeating an AWB renewal.  However, the election seems to have lulled us into complacency.  Republicans will sell you down the river just as fast as Democrats.  Don't forget a politician's first goal is to get re-elected.  If he thinks that voting for the AWB renewal is going to help him, guess what...

In any case, a letter a month per politician should be your goal.  Two senators and a representative, that's three letters a month between now and then.  

Also, and perhaps more importantly, get as many other shooters to write their reps!  If someone would post a generic letter here that would be easily customizable, that would be a start.  Make all your shooting buddies fill three out and send them off.  

Hand written letters from grandmothers still get the most sentiment, but if you get enough folks to send in enough letters about this issue and how bad it is to renew it, they just might listen.

Do NOT think this is an open and shut case.  This will be a very pivotal battle moving forward, though, for both sides.  If we lose.....it will start more gun control.  If we win, it may break the gun control groups' support.  

The first bit of good news is their letting the bill sunset in order to push for a more stringent bill.

The second bit of good news is their trying to pass a new bill that we can beat.

Mabye I just haven't seen enough gun-control politics, but I'm feeling optimistic about this one. Why?

1. Republicans control the Federal government. Yeah, not all Republicans are our friends, but this is still the best possible thing that could happen for us. If they put the right people in the committee chairs, the new ban may never see the floors of Congress.

2. They have to pass a bill. Our government was designed so that making laws was inherently difficult. A lot of things have to go right to get a bill passed, but it doesn't take that much to keep a bill from passing. They have to do the work of agreeing on a bill and getting it through all of the bureaucracy, while we just have to stop it at any level.

3. This law makes no sense. It has done nothing to stop crime and is supported by the most ridiculous collection of lies ever to grace the halls of Congress. This makes it easier to convince moderates to oppose it. It also helps get the more apathetic gun owners out to write letters, make calls, and vote.

4. Election year. Bush knows that he won the 2000 election because of the NRA. It will be that much easier to convince him and all of the other congresscritters up for reelection that we will vote them out if they piss on our rights again.

I sure hope we can win this one. If we can't keep a new, ridiculous ban from passing a Republican-controlled congress in an election year, then we're in real trouble.

I would also add that you should add to your letters and calls to congresscritters that they will not get your vote if they support a new AW ban, no matter what party they're in. Don't forget to give what you can to pro-rights organizations, and to make it clear what you expect from them.

right on. If this shit goes through then the shit will have hit the fan. And I like so many others will be tired of the bullshit and just simply ignore the so-called "laws"

MOLON LABE!

[liberal demonrat flame suit on] words like "assualt weapon" and "high powered rifle" are buzz words to make them sound more dangerous, assault weapon, ooooooooh thats dangerous [;D] Guess what? if I attack you with it its an "assault weapon" People like to call any semi auto gun that looks like a military arm an "assualt weapon." Thats bullshit. It dont matter how much shit you add to a weapon,bayonet,suppressor,tele-stock,lights,lasers ect, its still the same bullet coming out of the same barrel at the same velocity hitting the same area of the same body doing the same amount of damage. Cut the bullshit already. [/liberal demonrat flame suit off]

Heh. I remember when the first brady was the "line in the sand", then the "assault weapon" ban was the "line in the sand". You all will just step back and draw a new "line in the sand" after the new "assault weapon" ban is signed into law. It will just be easier on yourself and your families if you just comply and quit fantasizing about resisting your own democratically elected government.

I do like that line about "semiautomatic" weapons being bad for a civil society.

I know duck hunters who don't give two shits about FALs, but want to be buried with their duck guns.

Yes.

What we need is a thread (or even a whole other forum, hint, hint) devoted to writing representatives letters that will be heard (above and beyond the p&a forum).  We need to come up with form letters that give concise factual information, as well as not too thinly veiled threats of replacement if the rep. fucks up.  

We need to make it obvious to members that [red][b][size=3]HANDWRITTEN, USPS LETTERS[/red][/b][/size=3] get the most attention.  Phone calls and emails simply won't cut it.  Everybody needs to take the time to hand write slightly modified versions of these form letters to their legislators.  

A few thoughts on how to rid ourselves of the AW ban...

- The battle to make sure that the 94 AW ban is not made permanent, or replaced with something much more restrictive will take place in the [size=3][blue][b]U.S. House of Representatives[/b][/blue][/size=3]... [b][u]plain and simple[/u]![/b]

Make no mistake... Pres. Bush [b]will[/b] sign a new & improved AW ban [i]if[/i] one makes it to his desk. He is on record as saying that he supports the ban, and his post 9/11 track record of disregard for our Constitutional protections should make even the staunchest Bush backers realize that when the chips are down, "the shrub" will not be a friend of the Second Amendment.  

The U.S. Senate will pass a new AW ban in spite of the Rebublicans being in control come 04, so once again...
All of our efforts should be aimed at sending a clear and concise message to [blue][b]Congress[/b][/blue] that… [b] When the AW ban dies, it stays dead, otherwise the Reps. lose their jobs ASAP!  They must understand in no uncertain terms that we will no longer tolerate the infringement of that which "...shall not be infringed."[/b]


- In any effort to influence our elected Reps.,"snail mail" still reigns supreme. Good old typed and hand signed letters sent via first class mail make    
Congresscritters take notice of your opinion because they understand that a letter takes time and effort to compose. They realize that if you are passionate enough about an issue to take the time away from your family and career to write them, you are damn sure going to show up on Election Day to help vote them out of office!    

- Don't just write to a Reps. Washington offices... Send copies of your letter to 1 or 2 of their home district offices (you can always find these addresses on a particular Reps. web site.)  I doubt they cross-reference the names on the letters, so this tactic is a good force multiplier.

- [b]Follow up is very important!!![/b] Sending a couple of letters is just the beginning. A few weeks after I send out letters, I like to fax an identical copy of the letter to the Reps. office as a pleasant reminder that the issue is still important and that I am not going away.
A couple of weeks later, follow up with a polite phone call to your friendly Rep. Ask for their position on the issue. Voice your opinion, tell them how you want them to vote, and thank them for their time.  

Wait a few weeks, and [b]start the process over again![/b]  Keep the pressure on!!!  

*Notice I didn’t recommend sending E-mails... many of them are deleted unread &/or ignored by Congressional staff members.
 

Hope some of this helps.  

At the risk of appearing redundant... [url=www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=141360&w=searchPop]The AR That You Save May Be Your Own[/url]

Hearts & minds guys, hearts & minds...

Great post.

Very good points [b]NYPatriot[/b]. Thanks.

This will take TIME and PLANNING and FOLLOW-UP.

We need the names of all House Reps who will be in the new 108th Congress who were around when the 1994 AWB was narrowly passed - we need the names of everyone who voted FOR and AGAINST that bill. To remind those who voted AGAINST it and who are still there that we expect them to vote it down once again.

We need EVERYONE to write and sign letters to THEIR Congressmen regularly that we expect them to vote AGAINST any new AWB or '94AWB-extension AND we need to back it up with [u]solid reasons and solid consequences[/u] (voting Libertarian in the [b]primaries[/b] AND general election if they pass a new AWB).

We need to keep their feet to the fire for the next TWO YEARS.


I'm starting work on a few letters with brief, concise statistics, SCOTUS rulings etc. to back up our position that the AWB must not be extended or replaced.

Our arguments have to hit their mind AND their hearts. Emotion AND reason have to be on our side. We have to give our Congressmen every possible reason to vote against the AWB and shoot down every possible reason to vote for it.

Remember - your Congressman is probably going to  have to sit in Congressional hearings and look right in the faces of dozens of mothers and fathers who've had their children killed by guns and listen to their sob-stories... and STILL vote against banning those "evil killing machines that killed my baby".

They need our backing. They need to know WE are supporting them if they vote against it.


We also need to hit the NRA and GOA - they have to hear from us just as much too.

And go beyond this little circle. Hit as many other gun boards as possible. Talk it up.


[b][red]Let the duck hunters know they're next...[/red][/b]

[b]"Semiautomatic weapons and other weapons of war have no legitimate place in civil society and ought to be banned outright right now."[/b] ~ Hubert Williams, Police Foundation President. 11/21/02

[b]"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."[/b] ~ Sen. Diane Feinstein D-CA, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

[b]"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"[/b] ~ Rep. Charles Schumer D-NY, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93

[b]"The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."[/b] ~ Sarah Brady.

[b]"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"[/b] ~ Rep. Henry Waxman, D-NY, 5/2001

[b]"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."[/b] ~ Janet Reno.

Time to break out the "big guns":  Pro RKBA quotes from the icon of all Democrat icons... [b]John F. Kennedy[/b]!!!






 

Awww-Yeah! Preach Reverend, PREACH!!! [bounce]





GREAT FIND [b]NYP!!![/b]

Hell of a find!! I'm looking for more "icons" to support us!

A few more Democrat icons:

[b]"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them"[/b] ~ Walter Mondale, 4/20/94

[b]"But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."[/b] ~ Hubert Humphrey, 1960

I've said this before but I think it bears repeating, there is almost no political downside to voting for an "assault weapons" ban. The emotional and therefore  political power of the term "assault weapon" is just too great. If the term were not so entrenched or could be replaced by "military-style rifle" or "sport utility rifle" or "self-loading rifle" there might be a chance. The opposition, by using the term "assault weapon" controls the debate. How can any politician vote in favor of assault?

FYI : [url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci master plan
PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation Dis-Armament.


[size=1]10 Banning all military style firearms
    The Pending National ban on all Assault Weapons,[b] based on a point
    system can be expanded to eventually cover any firearm with a
    remotely military appearance.[/b]  We feel that this aggressive
    appearance appeals to the type of dangerous individuals who are a
    definite threat to public safety.[/size=1]

On Schedule
^
[size=1]^
[url]www.Cures-not-wars.org/[/url] Truth Will Liberate Earth.
[url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci master plan
PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation Dis-Armament.
[url]http://www.DigitalAngel.net/[/url]Revelation 13:18  ID-GPS-MONEY Human Implant Micro-chip

Never Again, Never Forget
Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind
We Are At WAR
[/size=1]
FIXED BAYONETS

VX

I've been to a bolt gun board....they all agreed with me, an not one person had anythig bad to say....it's kinda like here, but with bolt guns, and less foul language, and no pcitures....

Those guys aren't frettin over this, but those are the ones that we need to get to write too!

I like the write, call, then fax method myself.
They're gonna get sick of me! All my congressfolks are pro-gun, except the Dem that knows better than to vote for such a thing again!  I just want to get them to be pro-active in this...

Molon Labe!!!

FYI: [url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci master plan
PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation Dis-Armament

[size=1]Ultimately such action would take the glamour
and attraction out of firearms ownership and decrease the numbers of gun
owners in the U.S. _to a manageable number._

IV.[b] _Reduction of Gun Owner Population[/b] and Potential Yearly Revenue_[/size=1]

It Is Not About You, But Your Children's Ability to Protect Themselves.

[b]For The Children, Dis-Arming The Future.[/b]

In California They Have Already TOOK ALL Future AR-15's.

Do You Understand their Plan.?
^
[size=1]^
[url]www.Cures-not-wars.org/[/url] Truth Will Liberate Earth.
[url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci master plan
PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation Dis-Armament.
[url]http://www.DigitalAngel.net/[/url]Revelation 13:18  ID-GPS-MONEY Human Implant Micro-chip

Never Again, Never Forget
Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind
We Are At WAR
[/size=1]
FIXED BAYONETS

VX

I agree with NYP, it would be political suicide for Bush if he vetoed a AWB renewal.  I can picture all those soccer Mom's gasping now...
The renewal must be stopped in Congress, preferably in committee.

The difference is that Bush won't lift a finger to help a ban pass, whereas Gore would certainly have fought tooth and nail for one.  Bush certainly wasn't intimidated by the environmental groups this week, why would the anti-gunners be any different?

Remember during the debates Bush said, "I support the legislation as currently written."  Sneaky huh?  It gives him an out either way.

Actually there is a downside - being voted out of office, particularly if your district is a swing or conservative district.  The AW ban is one of the reasons why Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994.  We need to remind them to not repeat their performance, like a moth returning to play with the flame.



This is a good point.  It would be quite helpful to us to coin some other phrase.  How about Home Defense rifles?  After all, these are medium-powered rifles that many members, myself included, are using for home defense.

To all the pessimists on this forum:

The country has changed in significant ways since the AW ban first passed in 1994:

The Democrats lost Congress because of it.  They are unlikely to want to doom their chances of regaining control of Congress.  The AW ban actually passed in the House of Representatives by exactly one vote, partly because then speaker Tom Foley extended the voting period until it passed(I watched the whole thing on CSPAN).

The newly Republican House actually passed a repeal of the AW ban, by a fairly good margin.  It didn't go anywhere because of the promise of a Clinton veto and because of Senator Bob Dole's inaction in the Senate.

The people who think that gun control is effective have diminished in numbers and influence.  The Million Mom March?  Hello?

Thanks to the Internet, which really didn't exist in its present form in 1994, we gun owners are far more organized and active.  The NRA has nearly doubled in size to 4 million members.

The concealed carry movement has helped to demonstrate to the nation that gun ownership is safe and has positive social benefits - that of reducing crime.

Now this will still be a tough fight.  But I strongly believe that we will win it if we come out and fight.  If we just believe that the AW ban will pass, no matter what, then that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think we're out of the woods just yet on this. Although with the results of the recent election, I am a bit more (guardedly) optimistic that the AW ban will end up on the dung heap of foolish anti-gun legislation.

The sunset/vote is still almost 2 years away. A lot of things can go wrong in that time... the situation in Iraq can worsen or the economy can tank. If any scenario plays out that would make the Republicans public approval numbers go down, pols that would normally vote with us might abandon us. That's not even taking into consideration that some whack-job(s) could go on a rampage with a black rifle... especially if it happened a few months before the sunset.

Look at what happened with OK city and the AW repeal bill, and even more recently; the MD shootings and the Senate bill that would have protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

There are still going to be plenty of other battles to be fought also.
How other gun control measures are voted on in the next year/year and a half should give us some indication on the chances of eliminating the AW bill. So, we also have to concentrate on wining those as well.

Anyhow, I'm thinking what could happen is that the AW ban will sunset as scheduled. Similar, or worse, bills will be introduced, debated, assigned to committee, etc. The powers-that-be will then hold off on allowing it out of commute, or a vote, until after the elections. What happens then is anyones guess.

Ludwig's right about the near zero downside.  Anyone remember the Campaign Finance reform bill?  "I'll sign this even though it'll probably get overturned in court."  Now there's a prez who's willing to stand up for the constitution.  

Oh, anyone remember that Bush explicitly stated he WOULD renew the AWB?  Don't forget that.  Our battle is NOT for the white house's vote, it's for the senate and the house.  

How many folks have started getting the politician's addresses who have posted on this thread yet?  

I, for one, am not convinced that voting in favor of the AWB has ever lost anyone an election. The people on this board know that the AWB is cosmetic nonsense but most voters, even many gun owners actually believe  that  so-called "assault weapons" are high-powered (whatever that's supposed to mean) machine guns and should therefore be banned. There's a lot of educatin' to be done and we just don't have the means (mass media) to do it.
We'll be lucky if all that happens is a new AWB is passed which is the same as the present one but I think I remember GWBush
saying that he's in  favor of a 10 round mag limit. The Republicans will go along with that. After all, who are you going to vote for, the Dems? About all we can do in retaliation is not vote at all and in the long run I think that suits them just fine.

fixed bayonets? Hell after reading that report im gonna go dig up the old rusty ICBM out of the backyard [devil]

I beg to disagree.  Tom Foley and Maria Cantwell, of Washington State alone, come to mind.  In the state of Utah, where I lived in 1994, Karen Shepard (D) of the Salt Lake City district lost her seat.  An F rating from gun owner groups goes a long way in many Congressional districts - enough to tip the balance of many elections.

Of course, if you want to just give up and do nothing, so be it, but try to not pour cold water on the people who believe that defeating the AW ban can be done.  [b]The guns that they save may include your own.  The last thing that we need is defeatism in our ranks.[/b]

Far more difficult things have been accomplished with respect to gun rights.  I am an optimistic person by nature, and yet, at the beginning of the 1990s, I would have found it hard to believe that 32 states would have passed liberalized concealed carry laws in a decade.  Yet, thanks to the persistence of gun rights activists, that is exactly what happened, and Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Mexico may well join those ranks in the next couple of years.

If you doubt that it is possible to defeat the AW ban, consider this:
14 students were murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.  Congress immediately tried to pass a background check bill aimed at gun shows.  And we were able to defeat even that bill, even though it was fairly mild in the big scheme of things.  This was in an environment of tremendous bashing of gun owners and the NRA in the media and in public.  Far from defeating us, the bad treatment that we got actually energized us.

This will be an interesting two years.
Dems have learned it can be political suicide to appear anti-gun. I think only representatives in hard core liberal states will bring up the AWB, and many moderate Dems will not want them to talk about it.

Have you all forgotten Larry Flint controls Congress.

I don't know about that.

What have they got to lose?

All they have to do is BRING IT UP! That will FORCE the Republicans to either agree or cast it aside and then the media/Hollywood/MMMs will start the parade weeping mothers of dead children who were killed by guns.

The Dems have already decided to take a hard left turn by giving Pelosi House leadership and are giving Hitlery much more power over in the Senate. The radicals are taking over the Democratic party.

A dead party can't commit suicide. They've got nothing to lose. They are desperate. This will be very ugly.


OUR representatives will NEED our support to stand up to the hundreds of Joseph Goebbels in the Democratic/Media/Hollywood/News-conglomerate propaganda party.

 I did not mean to imply that being anti-gun never cost anyone an election. What I'm saying is that a politician can say that he is pro-gun but anti "assault weapon" and get away with it. In fact , military-style rifle owners are a small subset of all gunowners and it could be politically expedient to throw us overboard while maintaining that one is staunchly pro-gun.
 I am not being a defeatist when I try to point out what I believe is a very real political problem. Because we are familiar w/ military style weapons we cannot appreciate the fear that the media has ginned up about them.  As long as the vast majority of people believe the "assault weapons" myth, there is, as I've said, very little risk in supporting a ban.