Senator Reid is against a New Assault Weapon Ban!!!

[rangersmith82]

A buddy of mine emailed me this letter...

March 12, 2007



Mr. xxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me about the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) re-introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act on February 13, 2007. This legislation would ban the transfer, possession, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices for a ten year period. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

I do not support the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because studies have not demonstrated that it has any effect on reducing crime. I voted against the original assault weapons ban when it came before the Senate in 1993. I also voted against an effort to reauthorize the ban in 2004. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should I have the opportunity to review H.R. 1022 or related legislation in the Senate.

As a gun owner, I believe that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We must work to protect this right by enforcing gun safety laws that keep guns away from terrorists and criminals. The rights of responsible gun owners should not be compromised by individuals who use firearms to commit crimes. The overwhelming majority of Nevadan gun owners use their guns safely, and you may be certain that I will use my leadership position to work in a bipartisan fashion to preserve their rights.



Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator


Does anyone know if this is true???

He couldn't give me a source, as he got it in a email also.

Hopefully he wrote this letter, Senator Reid may be gun owners only hope if any kind of anti-gun bill makes it out of committee.

[ananda]

1. Government of the few, for the few, and by the few.

Disgusting.

[hendo]

5. exactly

The few anti-gun nuts who actually believe that the assault weapons ban helps make our party look bad.

You cannot stop crime by making it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.

[TPaine7]

6. Americans overwhelmingly support the Second Amendment.

If they weren't intentionally and systematically deceived on the subject, I see no reason they wouldn't overwhelmingly support black, ominous appearing, semiautomatic rifles.

[Howzit]

8. It sounds like you support any law that "gets guns off the street"?

According to FBI figures, all types of rifle, including those to be banned by the assault weapons ban, are used less often to kill than hands and feet: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

What exactly would another AWB accomplish that the first one didn't?

A single shot muzzle loading flintlock is just as effective today as it was 200 years ago;

If someone had the intent, they could certainly use one of these to delete someone else.

If you can be trusted with a single shot rifle, than you can be trusted with a 20 shot self-loading rifle, or so-called "assault weapon".

If you cannot be trusted with with a 20 shot self-loading rifle, you cannot be trusted with a single shot rifle.

My guess is you don't trust anyone with any kind of firearm, unless they work for the government, right?


If someone wants to kill another person "for fun", then even a single shot rifle is too much. The idea that you limit the risk of someone going crazy by disallowing "assault weapons" is open to discussion: The DC sniper evaded capture by evading detection for a long time, yet killed many people. This was achieved by using a so-called "assault weapon", but firing one aimed shot at a single target from a distance. That nut didn't even have to "leave the scene of the crime", as he was already hundreds of yards away immediately after, easily blending into normal human traffic.

This simple sequence was repeated over a long period and the terror factor was multiplied because anyone was a potential target with no end in sight - this rampage could have been achieved with a single shot rifle, and was not worse because the rifle used could accept a 30 round magazine.

People who don't trust others to have weapons are really saying that they would not trust themselves with weapons. When politicians don't trust the electorate with weapons they are really warning us not to trust them - just look at Gov. Blagojevich's position on ordinary people owning guns: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x193297

I don't mind if you have a handgun or any kind of "assault weapon", especially if you already have many such guns and have thus demonstrated responsible use and storage. In other words, I am less weary of "gun nuts" than of someone who buys his first gun. It makes no difference to me what that fist gun is because it is the intent of the gun owner that matters, not the perceived capability of the weapon. Gun nuts are not more dangerous than someone who owns just one gun as they can only use one gun at a time and generally have owned guns for a long time without causing mayhem. I look at how people treat each other when no guns are in the equation. Add to that how someone handles any gun tells me if they are a risk or not.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. Actually and overwhelming majority of Americans understand and support the 2A.

Not just a "few".

[jeepnstein]

2. Wow, I never expected that....

Maybe there is still hope for my Party. Let's keep control for a few years and maybe some good will come of it.

[bluestateguy]

3. Good

More pro-gun Democrats is good for the party and good for America.

[TPaine7]

4. This tends to support it

For Nevada Gun Owners, let's set the record straight on the AWB: In 1993 Senator Reid was a relative novice in the US Senate. Bill Clinton was a new Democratic President in the White House and Democrats were enjoying much success in their legislative agenda. As any new Senator might, Reid had hopes to move up through the Democratic ranks and establish his ability to represent Nevada through legislative leadership in the majority Democratic Senate. (Reid is now the Senate Minority Leader and the most powerful Nevada representative to ever serve in the U.S. Congress.) But in 1993 when an amendment to the Crime Bill was offered and cosponsored by leading Senate Democrats, Harry Reid voted NO. That amendment was the Assault Weapons Ban that was added to the Crime Bill by a vote of 56 to 43 (and 1 not voting).

Eight Democratic Senators voted NO against the AWB Amendment in 1993, and that NO vote included BOTH of Nevada's Democratic Senators - Reid and Bryan. Ten Republican Senators voted YES on the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Amendment in 1993 and attached it to the hugely popular Crime Bill that was passed into law in 1994 by a Senate vote of 95/4/1 that included 40 Republican Senators voting YES. This AWB ban terminated on September 13, 2004.

So before the lessons of the 1994 elections, before the AWB issue was proven a looser for Democrats across the nation, before the outrage that has now become a keystone of partisan politics for sportsmen, in 1993 Harry Reid voted NO to banning guns and YES for sportsmen's rights...

Source: http://www.nodc.us/REID01.htm

[jody]

7. "ACLU of Nevada Supports Individual’s Right to Bear Arms"versus ACLU national opposing RKBA.

http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual%E2%80%99s-right-bear-arms
QUOTE
In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights.
UNQUOTE

[FreeJG]

9. Stop supporting him just because

he is a democrat. It's a "sheeple' mentality.

[tburnsten]

15. Yes. Support him because he supports the Constitution

And the rights of U.S. citizens. Good job Mr. Reid, and I am glad you agree with me FreeJG.

[SteveM]

16. Can you explain your position, esp. with regards "sheeple?" (nt)

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Good to hear. n/t

[MercutioATC]

11. Reid makes an intelligent decision?? Hell must've frozen.

Reid might be completely worthless, but he's actually 100% right on this one.

[spin]

12. He seems to be the type of Democrat I like...

A Mormon, Senator Reid is an unlikely candidate to be a Democrat at all. He opposes gun control and some abortion rights, but is otherwise in the Democratic mainstream on major issues.
http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/senator-harry-reid-majority-leader/?tx_ttnews=1007&cHash=ec5bde24e8

Reid voted for the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"-- designed "to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages... resulting from the misuse of their products" and against the ban on semi-automatic firearms. He also voted in favor of the Brady Bill and background checks at gun shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid#Gun_politics

2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Reid a grade of B (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?category=37&go.x=13&go.y=10&can_id=53320&type=category

The muted response on Capitol Hill to the Virginia Tech massacre underscores an evolving willingness among some Democrats from the party’s urban and coastal strongholds to recognize the political realities that face colleagues who need rural votes to win office. It also illustrates a growing belief within the party that Democrats probably cannot keep power without a strategy to appeal to voters in the typically conservative heartland.

*************snip**************

The Democrats’ new hesitancy to engage on guns was clear almost immediately after Monday’s killings. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada warned against a “rush to judgment” in pursuing tighter gun laws.

Reid, whose voting record has gotten high marks from the NRA, spoke by telephone Thursday with Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, another Democrat who has courted hunters and the NRA, and the two agreed that it was too early to talk about legislation, according to Reid’s office.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/20/nation/na-gunpol20

[benEzra]

13. That is EXCELLENT news, thanks! (n/t)

[rrneck]

14. The first rule of American politics is to

find a group of people who are headed somewhere and get out in front of them. If I'm not mistaken there are some 45 to 53 million households who own guns. It looks like the Democrats took a look around and said "hey, wait a minute, these people vote!"

[NVJJC]

17. Who says you need a military rifle - DEMOCRATS

JFK said in 1960 "By calling attention to "a well
regulated militia" the "security of the nation, and
the right of each citizen "to keep and bear arms” out
founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of
our economy.  Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears
of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second
Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic
civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must
be ready to participate in the defense of his country.  For
that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be
important."  Published in GUNS Magazine  

It's not about duck hunting.  Citizens should be armed with
exactly the firearms our taxes buy government agents and foot
soldiers. Bases on function and firepower there are no
firearms available now that were not available in 1960.  

JFK said it and I believe it.  

[Deadric Damodred]

18. You didn't already know this?

I figured most people up on gun control knew that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was totally against banning "assault weapons", and has the record to prove it. If they try to put out an AWB on his watch, it may never even get to the floor.

[proteus_lives]

19. Good!

I hope it's legit.

[spin]

20. Harry Reid on gun contol from "On the Issues"...

Harry Reid on Gun Control

* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/harry_reid.htm