No, Tom Reed doesn’t get it

Signing a petition at a rally for health care reform in Denver.

Register and vote!

The outpouring of support you saw, I think, should be applauded, and I appreciate that input and that engagement in the democratic process to make sure that voice is heard. I can assure you I’m listening.–Rep. Tom Reed

No, Tom isn’t listening. In the Observer article, Tom didn’t mention guns.

March for Our Lives had these demands:

1. Fund gun violence research and gun violence prevention/intervention programs.

We must provide the CDC with dedicated funding to research gun violence as a public health issue. Even the original sponsor of the law that limits the CDC’s ability to do this research, former Congressman Jay Dickey, said that it was a mistake. More than 100 medical organizations have called on Congress to restore funding. Furthermore, we believe that gun violence and prevention community work is essential to reducing gun violence and these groups should be funded fully.

2.  Eliminate absurd restrictions on ATF.

The gun industry has operated mostly unchecked for far too long. ATF, the only federal agency with jurisdiction to regulate the gun industry, has been operating with one hand tied behind its back – unable to even digitize records of gun sales – or require gun dealers to conduct annual inventory checks to make sure they aren’t missing any guns. The ATF needs to become a modern agency, one capable of keeping receipts and efficiently regulating this massive industry.

3.  Universal background checks.

It is too easy to obtain a firearm. Right now, federal law only requires you to obtain a background check if you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. We must close the private sale loophole and make sure all sales undergo a background check.

4.  High-capacity magazine ban.

High-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds serve only one purpose – to allow someone to shoot as many bullets as possible, in the shortest amount of time. These magazines are devastating and need to be banned.

5.  Limit firing power on the streets.

Weapons of war have no place in our communities. Our nation requires a comprehensive assault weapons ban that prohibits the future production and sale of these weapons and provides a solution for dealing with those assault weapons that are already owned, such as a buyback program or registration.  Limiting high-powered weapons to the military has worked elsewhere to eliminate the opportunity for mass shootings.

Tom couldn’t hear these demands. Here is more that he didn’t mention:

  • Registration of all firearms.
  • Firearm manufacturer liability.
  • Universal background checks.
  • Age limits for buying and owning guns.
  • NRA Political influence.

Tom says he listened, but he didn’t get the message: Enough! Vote him out.

About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Gun Violence, Reed's Views, Rights. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to No, Tom Reed doesn’t get it

  1. Bob Mcgill says:

    You’re the one who doesn’t get it ! We should lockup agitators like you 🙂


  2. Steve Beikirch says:

    Bob, bring whatever army you think you need. You can start with me.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. josephurban says:

    Tom knows who gives him money. He will continue to vote the way he always has. No amount of factual information will change his voting pattern. He is in the pocket of ALEC and the NRA. So be it. The people need to vote him out of office and bring in someone who understands what it means to work for a living and who also understands the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Like Scalia wrote: No rights are unlimited.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. garymccaslin says:

    REED will reply that he must protect the 2nd amendment and refuses to acknowledge none of the following March for Our LIves demands do not jeopardize the 2nd Amendment.
    1. Fund gun violence research and gun violence prevention/intervention programs.
    2. Eliminate absurd restrictions on ATF.
    3. Universal background checks.
    4. High-capacity magazine ban.
    5. Limit firing power on the streets.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. pystew says:

    Compare Reed’s comment from this article to his comment from his Campaign Facebook Page:

    “Instead of working toward common-sense solutions that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with violent mental illnesses, Extreme Ithaca Liberals will attack our fundamental Second Amendment freedoms.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. whungerford says:

    Katrina Fuller wrote in “The Observer:”

    Reed said he is hopeful the movement will make the issue more than a campaign issue. He said he still “stands firm” on the Second Amendment. He said it is important to be able to put aside some staunch beliefs and come up with solutions that will help keep students safe.

    But it is Tom himself who makes guns a campaign issue. The “staunch beliefs” which he would have us put aside are ours, not his.


  7. Anonymous says:

    I disagree with Reed on every single issue except this. While I consider myself very progressive, I stand firm on the second.
    Universal background checks yes
    UNBIASED research on violence yes. Keyword UNBIASED.
    I am a life long Democrat, but the second is the one issue that may cause me to jump ship.
    If I sense that any Democratic candidate will actively work to restrict my rights, they will not get my vote.


  8. whungerford says:

    Anonymous, thanks for your comment. Would you please explain which rights you fear might be restricted? Which, if any, of the five “March for our Lives” demands do you find objectionable?


  9. Anonymous says:

    My right to bear arms. The only restrictions on firearm possession should be on the basis of personal disqualifiers. ie criminal background violent tendencies, mental health issues.
    Restrictions on type or magazine quantity is a violation of my right to bear arms.
    The Framers considered the second to be as important as the first the third , fourth, and fifth.


  10. whungerford says:

    Thanks for the explanation. In my opinion, there is more threat to liberty in allowing authorities to decide who is qualified or disqualified than in restricting possession of certain weapons.


  11. josephurban says:

    Anonymous. Good post. I am also a gun owner who believes in the right to bear arms. But I think you are incorrect when you say that restrictions on type of gun or magazine size is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. In DC v Heller, Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion, was clear about 3 points. 1. All citizens have a right to a gun for personal protection. 2. The government can stop certain types of individuals (felons, mentally unstable) from possessing guns. 3. The government can legally restrict the types of guns available to the general public (He uses military style weapons as an example).
    So, while it is certainly a legitimate political position to say that the government should not ban any gun, it is not a Constitutional position. Even the most conservative judge of modern times, Scalia, recognized that all rights have limits. He explicitly made that point clear in the DC v Heller decision. So, the Constitution does allow reasonable limits to gun possession rights . (Of course, the argument is: What is “reasonable”)

    Liked by 1 person

  12. whungerford says:

    For reference, here is the text of the Heller decision which includes Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion.

    Click to access 07-290.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  13. whungerford says:

    Here is a brief excerpt from Justice Stevens’ lengthy dissent:

    Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.


  14. Rynstone says:

    From the NY State Constitution Defense clause all able bodied citizens are part of teh militia to be called upon to defend the state and the country. I believe this allows a person to own the firearms that work best for them to defend the state, country and most importantly the Constitution and themselves.

    It is obvious the state legislature has neglected their duty to “regulate” the militia through training and arming programs. That leaves the responsibility up to the People.


  15. Rynstone says:

    1) Registration of all firearms. This would be a costly and never accurate program. All firearms data is recorded when a licensed dealer sells a firearm.

    2 ) Firearm manufacturer liability. This is non-sense The firearm did not shoot anyone, a person did.
    3) Universal background checks. Check NY State has this with the NY unSAFE Act

    4) Age limits for buying and owning guns. Check, a person must be 18 years of age to legally purchase a firearm. Refer to NY unSAFE Act

    5) NRA Political influence. The NRA exists to protect the 2nd Amendment Rights of it’s members


  16. josephurban says:

    I just got an email form the state of NY telling me I had to renew my vehicle registration. Easy. I did it right on line. It costs $57 for 2 years. Required by law. There is no reason why we cannot do the same for all firearms. Pay a small yearly fee which can go to subsidize the massive hospital, doctor and health care costs that we all pay due to the injuries and deaths that come from gun use. People forget how much guns add to all our health care insurance premiums each year.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. whungerford says:

    Should we add this to the Constitution?

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and drive cars, shall not be infringed.

    That would be ridiculous.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.