Yahoo News Gun Article

[JSM&P9C]

Link Removed

 

[Kalamity023]

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security... They are probably tired of all the letters!

 

[buckey01]

You can't trust any of these people. They are political whores who act only in their own self interest. They will betray us just as quickly as they did during the fiscal cliff vote. They betray their oath to defend the Constitution when ever it is convenient. This makes them traitors. The Constitution is the document that was supposed to protect the Republic against the tyranny of the majority and disingenuous political hacks.

 

[UATKP]

But isn't Mitch the minority leader? That's what I thought.

 

[dcselby1]

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security... They are probably tired of all the letters!

And EVEN MORE reason to keep writing and encouraging friends to do so if you have to type the letters for them!

 

[Warrior1256]

Keep sending those letters and e-mails out and keep making those phone calls and ask all of your friends / relatives to do the same. The politicians indeed do what is best for them. That includes pleasing what they perceive as the biggest voting block back home. Lets make sure that they see that this is pro-gun people.

 

[ezkl2230]

Did you see who the administration is getting their advice from - and who is likely to be their spokesperson?

The White House has been in contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate who could emerge as a surrogate for the administration's agenda, the paper said.

The Post cited several people involved in the administration's talks on gun control for its story. They included Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.

There's a surprise for ya.

Link Removed

 

[buckey01]

But isn't Mitch the minority leader? That's what I thought.

If you mean that both parties are responsible for our problems, I agree completely. I am beginning to think that members of Congress are required to immediately discard any moral code they ever had when they pass the Washington city limits. I believe that George Washington would want to remove his name from the capitol city. Washington was a man of honor and would be ashamed of any connection with this city or our government.

 

[ezkl2230]

If you mean that both parties are responsible for our problems, I agree completely. I am beginning to think that members of Congress are required to immediately discard any moral code they ever had when they pass the Washington city limits. I believe that George Washington would want to remove his name from the capitol city. Washington was a man of honor and would be ashamed of any connection with this city or our government.

I posted this on another thread.

The problem is that those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution - going all the way back to George Washington - hijacked it.

From the very beginning of our government a war was fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists. They believed (indeed, Jefferson and Madison, the two main authors of the Constitution, explicitly worded the Constitution with these goals in mind) in a small, general purpose government with a set of very clearly defined authorities. Having just won a war against a large, centralized government, they were rightfully concerned about the possibility of seeing a similarly all-powerful, centralized government being established in the US - so much so, that when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (which passed both the US AND State legislatures with a supermajority), they included these words in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

On the other side stood Washington and the Federalists. They believed strongly in a centralized, all-powerful government (John Adams actually believed the US needed its own king). Washington's own beliefs regarding the correct interpretation of the Constitution were stated in the circular letter he sent to the governors of the states on the eve of his retirement from public office:

"...to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated ⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions:

That unless the States will suffer [permit] Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution [Articles of Confederation], everything must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;

That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodged somewhere a Supreme Power [executive] to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.

That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late [recent] proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;

That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly..."

Washington stood for a centralized, all-powerful government, which, according to his letter, required that the People and the States "...forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community." Where the Bill of Rights reserved the majority of powers to the People and the States, Washington called on both entities to concede more of those powers and authorities to the federal government whenever the legislature called upon them to do so. To resist such a request or to take steps to limit (or diminish) the supreme authority of the federal government was a crime that "...will merit the bitterest execration [hatred and contempt] and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country." In other words, the Tenth Amendment was to be ignored in favor of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution. It was Washington who declared that revolution as a means of changing a tyrannical government was no longer an option since the founding of our republic:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The meaning was clear: revolting against a monarchy, as HE had done, was a good thing, but the AMENDMENT was the only proper way to effect change in a republic. By taking revolution off the table as a legitimate means of changing a government that had become so corrupt that it could not be changed by means of legislation or amendments, he also nullified the Second Amendment - which was intended by Jefferson and Madison to be a safeguard against a corrupt and tyrannical government. Sam Adams was even more blunt in his opinion of revolting against a republic:

"In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Again, it was justified when THEY finally resorted to revolution; for anyone else, revolution constitutes treason. The federalist understanding of the Constitution nullifies the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to bear arms for anything but hunting.

And since Washington was the first President of the US, who also appointed the first Supreme Court justices, the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution is the one that became the norm for the government. It is the understanding under which our legislature and the President operate to this day, and it is this hijacked interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to confiscate more of the rights that were Constitutionally enumerated to the PEOPLE whenever the urge hits, all in the name of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and national security.

No, the problem we face today is the direct result of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution that was institutionalized by none other than George Washington himself. That our nation's capitol is named for Washington is appropriate; his interpretation of the Constitution set the stage for what is happening today. The resulting mess is his to own forever.

 

[ezkl2230]

"Bloomberg advising White House on gun legislation"

Here is the latest from Yahoo news:

Bloomberg’s comments come after the Washington Post reported Sunday that Biden and a White House working group charged with coming up with new gun measures is planning a “far broader and more comprehensive” approach than previously anticipated in an attempt to curb gun violence.

Among the items on the table, according to the Post, are universal background checks for firearm buyers, including tougher mental health examinations, and a more comprehensive effort to track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database.

From the news coverage, there are no indicators that any group other than anti-firearms groups have a seat at this table. It appears that pro-2A groups are being completely excluded from this "meaningful conversation," as Gabby Gifford's husband called it.

Our efforts are going to have to be focused entirely on the legislators themselves.
Bloomberg advising White House on gun legislation | The Ticket - Yahoo! News