new Assault Weapon Ban being floated by Holder - first canary in the mineshaft?

[longeyes]

How do we fight it?

First by realizing what we are REALLY up against?  Enslavement.

And by becoming militant.  Not just by buying more ammo.  By being willing to become a visible, vocal, and fearless public protest group that will show itself in groups, in the streets, at Capitol Hill. I don't mean an armed band, but I do mean congregated bodies that are determined and angry.  Do we still have enough anger to fight the Beast?

Well, if we don't that Beast is going to devour us whole.  This is no nightmare, it's real.

[Fjolnirsson]

Longeyes is correct, as is bk425. I know it's frustrating to contact reps and such, only to get blown off or actually laughed at(How do I know? Feinstein used to be my Congresscritter). But we have to try, we have to do all we can. On your deathbeds, will you look your children in the eye and tell them you did all you could to resist tyranny(And that's what an AWB is, tyranny by our elected officials), or do you want to tell them you rolled over and took it, because writing and telephoning wasn't effective?

If what you are doing isn't effective, find something that is effective, whether it's protesting, making new shooters or educating the misinformed.

[Balog]

If the Founders were willing to try to talk the British around, we can do less.

[RevDisk]

Writing is always good.  But also.   If you can swing it, buy more guns.  I'm not kidding, the politicians are glancing at the statistics on firearms sales and translating them to votes.  Donate money to worthy organizations and politicians.  If you can, volunteer for worthy organizations or politicians. 


AFAIK, Obama himself has not yet stated a desire to submit an AWB.  That gives him plausible deniability, for the second.  Write your Congresscritters suggesting that Congress should call for Mr. Holder's resignation.  If for nothing else, as Mr. Holder was obviously not very honest during his confirmation hearings and the distasteful way he wishes to harm a productive and booming sector of our economy in order to appease a foreign country.  Restricting the Constitutional rights of all Americans at the behest of a foreign country is not the type of activity we appreciate in our Attorney General.     

There is more than one way to fight, and sometimes being sneaky is the way to go about things.  If Obama is testing the water through an expendable proxy, we need to stomp on that proxy in short order.

[seeker_two]

how do we fight it?

Work for the best solution now (write, call, march, donate).....


....and prepare for the worst (you have to decide that course of action for yourself)....

[longeyes]

Sneaky is just a delaying action.  We are kidding ourselves if we don't see what is going on, in the big picture, as an assault on the nation, the West, and the Enlightenment. No, I am not exaggerating.

Most of us have thought that civil rights movements were only for "minorities."  Well, guess what, the time has come when we who believe in liberty need our own Martin Luther Kings, regardless of the price paid.  Nothing less is going to save freedom in America.

[HankB]

Holder may not expect to get everything he wants all at once - it sounds to me like an opening gambit in a negotiation, subject to future "compromise."

Of course, their idea of compromise is that they advance their program incrementally, whereas we back off. 

Then, next year, repeat. 

[Harold Tuttle]

[Harold Tuttle]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

[Manedwolf]

Translated:

Pelosi: "Not YET, you idiot! That was for later!"

[Strings]

Ya know, this is reminding me of Janet Reno's press conference shortly after the AWB was originally passed. The one where she told everybody "the next class of weapons we want to go after is the sniper rifle", which was only played once or twice before dropping down a dark hole...

 The COULD also be complete smoke & mirrors: get everybody riled up now. Put a "sacrifice" bill up. Then all the Dems can point out their vote against come 2010...

[longeyes]

Our job is to be clear about what we are defending here and be militant in letting the powers that be know we are serious.

Getting lost in details and policy strategy, short-term, long-term, is a distraction.  We know what prevails in less enlightened nations that have never had our liberties. We also know what has progressively occurred in nations that have some semblance of liberty but have largely become disarmed.

WE. ARE. NEXT.

[Nitrogen]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

I am officially living in Bizarro-world now.

[longeyes]

Holder blew the plan, that's all.  Loose lips.  If there is ANYONE who can't be trusted it is our Speaker of the House.

[Seenterman]

Yea that is confusing Pelosi coming to our defence  :|. Maybe it's a good sign that some democrats are waking up, seeing the number of firearms bought recently, and considering those might turn into votes for Republicans if Democrats continue on this stupid anti-firearm path.

[Manedwolf]

Yea that is confusing Pelosi coming to our defence  :|. Maybe it's a good sign that some democrats are waking up, seeing the number of firearms bought recently, and considering those might turn into votes for Republicans if Democrats continue on this stupid anti-firearm path.

She is not coming to anyone's defense. She's just shushing Holder, who has a big mouth.

He was at least trying to slap with a glove. She prefers a knife in the back.

[Nick1911]

Yea that is confusing Pelosi coming to our defence  :|. Maybe it's a good sign that some democrats are waking up, seeing the number of firearms bought recently, and considering those might turn into votes for Republicans if Democrats continue on this stupid anti-firearm path.

One can hope, but:

Holder blew the plan, that's all.  Loose lips.  If there is ANYONE who can't be trusted it is our Speaker of the House.

Is far, far more likely.

[seeker_two]

The next AWB won't be a stand-alone bill...but a tag-along on a bill that MUST BE PASSED....like the Porkulus Bill or the next Give-The-Poor-Single-Moms-In-The-Projects-A-Hand bill....something that they can use against any pol who speaks out against it at election time....

...vigilance is tough....but necessary....

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The next AWB won't be a stand-alone bill...but a tag-along on a bill that MUST BE PASSED....like the Porkulus Bill or the next Give-The-Poor-Single-Moms-In-The-Projects-A-Hand bill....something that they can use against any pol who speaks out against it at election time....

...vigilance is tough....but necessary....

Yup, keep an eye on the next few budget bills, war funding bills, and ZOMGfixtheeconomy bills.

[PTK]

It's pretty clear that Pelosi didn't want a civil war.

[seeker_two]

It's pretty clear that Pelosi didn't want a civil war.

...or a Republican Speaker of the House....

[Matthew Carberry]

So, once again we learn what about the separation of powers?

It is Congress who we need to watch for a new AWB, not the Executive.  AG Holder can run his suck all day about what he'd like to do and not pass one bill.

Keep on your Congressmen and Senators and let AG Holder continue to make himself look like an idiot as his own boss and his allies in Congress contradict him almost faster than the news can report it.

[longeyes]

That suggests a) they don't have the votes in Congress and b) Obama can't use Executive Orders and/or treaties to get the desired effect and c) that one or two Obama-leaning Justices of the Supreme Court can't change the ground rules altogether.

[Matthew Carberry]

That suggests a) they don't have the votes in Congress and b) Obama can't use Executive Orders and/or treaties to get the desired effect and c) that one or two Obama-leaning Justices of the Supreme Court can't change the ground rules altogether.

I doubt they have the votes, and they know it, or Pelosi wouldn't have been so vocal.

Treaties are a risk but I'm not sure they have the votes for a walk-over ratification on guns any more than they have the votes for legislation.

Outside of a heart attack, the Justices Obama is likely to have the chance to replace in his first term will be liberals.  Not a big chance of a vote gain.  There won't be a walk-over on confirmation as long as we stay on top of our Congressmen so we might, just might, actually end up with more centrist replacements than the current ones.

It's dark, but the stars are still out.

[Gowen]

...or a Republican Speaker of the House....

Yes, even she knows that gun control is a looser issue at the ballot box.