What now?

[connsolo]

So…I've written every state rep I can several times. I would attend any hearings except I'm away on business for a couple weeks. Who else can I contact to express my opposition to the anti-gun bills?

[ASmith]

I would look up their phone numbers and start calling them once a week.

[tman]

Urge your friends to do the same.


You DO have friends, right?

[BigBlue]

Urge your friends to do the same.


You DO have friends, right?

+1

Educate them all on what EXACTLY is being proposed and what real-life effects it will have if passed. The fact that so many different firearms would become 'assault weapons' and be banned, that they would be subject to $200 fees, background checks, registration, home inspections, and confiscation-on-death. The VAST majority of gun owners I talk to are just getting the media perspective and have the mindset that "well, it's just the evil black rifles and ridiculously large magazines that will be affected and that isn't something I'm worried about". Like it or not, that's how a lot of people think. We'll have a challenge getting them all to realize how slippery of a slope that is and to fight with us on the fundamental beliefs, but it will be a LOT easier to get their support when they realize grandpa's old Marlin .22 tube-fed rifle they have in the closet (or their kid's 10/22) will be affected and confiscated.

BB

[sansooshooter]

Urge your friends to do the same.


You DO have friends, right?

+1

Educate them all on what EXACTLY is being proposed and what real-life effects it will have if passed. The fact that so many different firearms would become 'assault weapons' and be banned, that they would be subject to $200 fees, background checks, registration, home inspections, and confiscation-on-death. The VAST majority of gun owners I talk to are just getting the media perspective and have the mindset that "well, it's just the evil black rifles and ridiculously large magazines that will be affected and that isn't something I'm worried about". Like it or not, that's how a lot of people think. We'll have a challenge getting them all to realize how slippery of a slope that is and to fight with us on the fundamental beliefs, but it will be a LOT easier to get their support when they realize grandpa's old Marlin .22 tube-fed rifle they have in the closet (or their kid's 10/22) will be affected and confiscated.

BB

This is exactly what I have run into talking to my gun owning friends and friends that are not gun people . They have no idea the scope of these laws and how
many people will become criminals not even realizing their gun or a family members gun is now a bad gun!

[MNGunner]

Hopefully this proposal will open the eyes of anyone who has or would consider voting for any democrat.

Educate everyone you know. Take a libby or two or three to the range if you can convince them to come. One of the funniest things is seeing a die-hard libby find out that she enjoys target shooting. 22LR is best for libbies to start out with.

[Dante]

More insults and name-calling.... brilliant!

[MNGunner]

More insults and name-calling.... brilliant!

I edited it up for you so that it cannot be considered an insult against your vote or your candidate.

[grousemaster]

More insults and name-calling.... brilliant!

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.

[Dante]

Thanks but no need to worry about me personally.

The reason I mentioned it is because there has been several discussions about how we treat the other side, specifically trying to get people to not fall into using derogatory or inflaming words to describe the anti-gun folks. I think we are better than this, and I would like to see that theory proven in every post I read here (I know; but one can hope).

[MNGunner]

More insults and name-calling.... brilliant!

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.

There's no better way to demonstrate appreciation than by... well... showing appreciation. And the absolute worst possible way to demonstrate "appreciation" for a Constitutional right is by trying to take away that Constitutional right.

I must have missed the part of the Constitution that grants right to gay marriage...

[grousemaster]

More insults and name-calling.... brilliant!

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.

There's no better way to demonstrate appreciation than by... well... showing appreciation. And the absolute worst possible way to demonstrate appreciation for a Constitutional right it by trying to take away that Constitutional right.

I'll play devils advocate, who's trying to take away a constitutional right? Are you talking about the Patriot Act? Or "common sense restrictions" on voting, like the Voter I.D. law that failed?

[MNGunner]

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.[/quote]

There's no better way to demonstrate appreciation than by... well... showing appreciation. And the absolute worst possible way to demonstrate appreciation for a Constitutional right it by trying to take away that Constitutional right.[/quote]


I'll play devils advocate, who's trying to take away a constitutional right? Are you talking about the Patriot Act? Or "common sense restrictions" on voting, like the Voter I.D. law that failed?[/quote]

Hmm... maybe we are talking about an entirely different thing? Where in the Constitution is the registeration of guns described? Or confiscation of guns? Or destruction of guns?

Actually, they all are: "..shall not be infringed."

[grousemaster]

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.

There's no better way to demonstrate appreciation than by... well... showing appreciation. And the absolute worst possible way to demonstrate appreciation for a Constitutional right it by trying to take away that Constitutional right.[/quote]


I'll play devils advocate, who's trying to take away a constitutional right? Are you talking about the Patriot Act? Or "common sense restrictions" on voting, like the Voter I.D. law that failed?[/quote]

Hmm... maybe we are talking about an entirely different thing? Where in the Constitution is the registeration of guns described? Or confiscation of guns? Or destruction of guns?

Actually, they all are: "..shall not be infringed."[/quote]


Your argument is going to carry little weight. The SCOTUS has already affirmed that restrictions can be placed on constitutional rights. My point is that both parties like to try and infringe on our rights, this isn't a left vs. right issue...

[MNGunner]

Yea, as if conservatives are the only one's that appreciate constitutional rights. It wasn't too long ago we tried to pass a gay marriage ban in MN.

There's no better way to demonstrate appreciation than by... well... showing appreciation. And the absolute worst possible way to demonstrate appreciation for a Constitutional right it by trying to take away that Constitutional right.

I'll play devils advocate, who's trying to take away a constitutional right? Are you talking about the Patriot Act? Or "common sense restrictions" on voting, like the Voter I.D. law that failed?[/quote]

Hmm... maybe we are talking about an entirely different thing? Where in the Constitution is the registeration of guns described? Or confiscation of guns? Or destruction of guns?

Actually, they all are: "..shall not be infringed."[/quote]


Your argument is going to carry little weight. The SCOTUS has already affirmed that restrictions can be placed on constitutional rights. My point is that both parties like to try and infringe on our rights, this isn't a left vs. right issue...[/quote]

Which party, if you had to guess, would you say is driving the effort?

And any time someone who tries to (I am purely guessing here, based on your avatar) portray himself as a someone who is pro gun rights is willing to say that in his opion the text of the Constitution "carries little weight", that's not a good sign.