There are many positive things about Jim Moran, some of them listed above.  His office staff are some of the most professional and intelligent people working on the hill.

However, what gave us a victory in November was the fact that Jim Webb is pro second amendment.  If Virginia democrats had even hinted that they supported additional gun control laws, then we'd be looking at another six years of George Allen, and GOPer's would still have control of the US Senate.

By putting his name on Webb campaign signs, Webb/Moran, Jim Moran had to realize that gun control was off the table.

As of last week Jim Moran has signed on as a co-sponsor of HB 1022, a wide reaching so called "Assault Weapons Ban".  This is what most Virginia moderates feared and took into consideration in casting their votes last November.  Fortunately more moderates believed in Jim Webb and his ability to lead than they feared the gun banning Democrats.

Republicans use the politics of fear, fear of terrorists, fear of gays, fear of government, fear of liberals, to scare people into casting their votes for GOP candidates.  Gun control, banning guns, is one of the GOP's best arguments against the democrats.  While the GOP and the Bush administration wipe their noses with our civil rights, i.e. NSA wiretaps, Patriot Act, FBI sneak and peak, signing statements etc., they still win the argument on constitutional rights over bills like HB 1022.

Yesterday the US Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 decision, has finally put the 2nd amendment back in the constitution, and sets up what will hopefully be a definitive decision by SCOTUS on whether the 2nd is a collective right or an individual right.  I look forward to their decision, as we will finally dispel any rumor of what American "freedom" really means.  Do we have the right to life, liberty, and property or are we really just "subjects" of the government?

By electing Jim Webb we democrats have shown that the strategies of the Democratic Party are not written in stone.  The Black, Hispanic, Gay and Union voting blocks that typically carry democrats to near victory are only really powerful, and victorious, when joined by moderates.

Jim Moran, by his support of HB 1022, has proven every GOP'er correct: we taught the republicans a lesson in November and will now be subjected to another gun ban.

I will guarantee that moderates will not make the same mistake again, even if we have to live with the likes of a George Allen.

How in any way is Jim Moran's sponsorship of a particular bill regarding firearms any reflection on Jim Webb or other pro-2nd Amendment Democrats?  Moran has long favored gun control; what's changed and why do you sound so surprised?  It's not like we have any new information here, and it's not like peoples' right to bear arms is any serious jeopardy as far as I can tell.

Jim Webb allowed Jim Moran to distribute campaign signs that had both names, Webb/Moran on them.  Sounds like an endorsement to me, one way or the other.  They also shared campaign space at 1916.  Again, an endosement.  I questioned this at the time but no Webb staffer semed to be "aware" that this was being done.  Guess they will be "more aware" pretty soon.

Also, the conduct of a US Congressman from Virginia does indeeed reflect directly on the US Senator from Virginia.  If/When HB 1022 makes it to the Senate, will Jim Webb support it?  A valid question I think.

And yes "the peoples" right to keep and bear arms is in serious jeopardy here.  HB 1022 is not a merely a ban on "cosmetic" attributes of rifles as was the 1994 AWB but an out right ban of entire catagories of rifles and handguns.

In other words "here we go again".

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)is the one who introduced this bill.  She is a one trick pony, same thing every year, ban guns.  Her husband was the victim of a subway shooting in NY, and I am sorry for her loss, however, as a Congresswoman this has been her one and only issue in the Congress.

Jim Moran is free to support whatever bills he likes, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for both himself and other democrats.

from this.  Does every political "endorsement" or alliance of convenience mean that you're tied to every position the other person takes forever?  Of course not.  Jim Webb, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed his position on 2nd Amendment issues one iota. And knowing him, I strongly doubt that he will.  Same thing with trade issues, where Webb ("fair trade") and Moran ("free trade") don't really agree too much.  The thing is, the Democratic Party is just that, "democratic" small "d."  Lots of views, lots of diversity, lots of strength in that.

I'm not.

Say the word republican and what comes to mind?  Tom Delay, Newt "the nut" Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rick Santorum, "B1" Bob Dornan and his watermelons.  Or speak the name Dick Cheney, and you have just spoken the words that are the sum total of the republican party.  Which in turn means a constitutional amendment to protect the flag, the "protection of marriage act", tax breaks for the very wealthy, and those pesky lawes about seperation of powers.  With one name or one phrase you know exactly what you're going to get all in one bag.

Now to the democrats.  In the mind of most moderates that word means gun control and welfare i.e. socalisim.  The names Bill Clinton, Diane Finestein, Barbara Boxer are the sum total of the democratic party.  Unless we change.

All of these things that the parties stand for are, in my opinion, just grist for the mill.  Nothing substantial, or addressing the real problems we have in the world today.

As a party, a party that now has majorities in both houses, we don't need this diversion.  Yet here is our own Virgina congressman leading the way.  This will have an impact on our statewide elections this November as well.  Think the democrats and NOVA can get a leg up in the general assembly?  Not with these type of antics.  Virginian's will keep it in republican control.  So while Mary Margaret Whipple will still be safe, there are many opportunities for democrats that are going to evaporate.

Bill Clinton, with the passage of the 1994 AWB, handed the House to Newt and the republicans.  Now I'm sure that not all democrats voted for the AWB, but it didn't seem to make a difference to the voters.  Lots of states went big red that year and setup the election of George Bush.  Without that one bill passing congress, life would have been a lot different.  Perhaps we would have had a very bright and intelegent man in the White House - Al Gore for example, had he carried his home state of Tennesee (where there are a lot of gun owners).

Leadership requires courage, courage to look the Brady Campaign lobbyist in the eye and say, I'm a Virginian and I believe in freedom, so please put your money away.

Jim Webb is a democrat now.  He's part of the bag of nut's just like Jim Moran.  And as much as some would like to say that Webb and Moran are each their own type of man, they are democrats and will politically prosper or perish depending on what leadership the party provides.

We are still in Iraq, Bush continues his escalation unabated, we still have the Patriot Act in full force, and the build up to war with Iran is still in every speech that Bush makes.  We have immediate problems that require making very difficult choices.  Some of those choices will last for generations.

Stop the gun ban non-sense now.  The time of the easy "gimmie" votes in congress are over.  You were part of the grass roots effort that brought that to an end.  Due to that grass roots effort people are now engaged in the political process like never before.  We can and did make a difference.  Hard fought and hard won.  To allow the likes of a few to bring that to an abrubt halt would be very wrong.

...do you or do you not agree that a locality should be able to restrict handguns in any way, shape or form?  If the views of people in, let's say, Chicago, differ from those in southern Illinois, should it still be "one size fits all" on this issue for everyone?  And do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is completely unambiguous, allowing every citizen an unlimited right to bear whatever arms (F-16s, anyone?) they want?  Personally, I consider myself a moderate on the gun issue, but I have a feeling that in your eyes, anyone who favors ANY kind of licensing, waiting periods, background checks or any other restrictions on gun ownership is barely to the right of a Communist.  Am I wrong on that?

lets be realistic.  F-16's are prohibitively expensive for most people.  So a private F-16 ban is probably overkill.

In Virginia, last session, we did away with localities being able to pass stricter gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law.

So yes, I am against localities passing laws that restrict citizens of that state from the freedoms guaranteed in the state constitution and the laws of the state just because they happen to live in an urban area.  There are no special circumstances that require those types of measures and in fact it is more likely that people need to protect themselves in the urban environment more so than in a rural environment.

Al Eisenberg (47th District) says he is a gun owner and supports the second amendment however; he has supported each and every restriction on guns this session.  Including making it a class 6 felony to have a BB gun on school property or notify property owners on "both sides of the road" if you're carrying a firearm while not hunting.  Point is you either understand the right of people to not be victims of violence or you don't.

Why do people treat the 2nd amendment any differently than the 1st?  Words are much more dangerous than guns aren't they?  Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 there wasn't a single shot fired by Americans or Iraqi's.

For the past 70 years the SCOTUS has regarded the 2nd amendment as a right, but not a fundamental right.  So while states have had the legal right to regulate firearms, it is without a doubt unconstitutional for the federal government to do so.

Virginia has, with some exceptions, the best firearms laws in the country.  Those of us who own guns, and enjoy the shooting sports, are law-abiding citizens.  We respect all the laws, play by the rules, get our background checks to purchase a gun, wait 45 days for the Virginia State Police and the FBI to run our names and fingerprints through the system so that we can receive a concealed handgun permit, and pay our money for hunting and fishing licenses.  We are subjected to great scrutiny for the right to protect our families, our property, and ourselves.  I refuse to be a victim so these things are tolerated.

The magic word that you mentioned though is licensing.  Registering handguns is a non-starter.  It is nobody's business what type or how many guns are owned and by whom.

The point here is that criminals do not obey the law.  A state can make as many laws as it likes and only the law abiding will obey them.  It has been proven time and time again that criminals, even in the face of harsh punishment, don't obey the law.

Washington DC is the best example in the country of a failed gun policy.  Great Britain and Australia are countries that have enacted all of the laws that some are trying to enact here.  These efforts have failed so miserably that now kitchen knives and ceremonial swords are being outlawed. And yet gun crime, by criminals, is still a problem.  They removed the legal right of the people to protect themselves and succeeded in making the pool of victims much larger.

Make gun ownership illegal and then only criminals will have guns.  And that is exactly what has happened in DC.  I've yet to hear of a "drive by shooting" in Virginia.  And even if it does happen, a criminal would have committed it.  Someone that didn't bother to obtain a firearm legally.  Making it more difficult for me to buy and own a firearm isn't going to make you safer.

But "gun control" SOUNDS good.  It is the democratic show of force to be tough on crime.  But it only sounds good to those who know nothing.  It doesn't, and hasn't, made anyone safer.

Guns are scary things.  What is even scarier is depending on the government to defend you.  Police, fire and EMS respond AFTER someone has harmed you.  Do you think that a robber or rapist cares that you're going to call 911?  I think they know it's a given and have already made up their mind.  For you, 911 is too late.

Rep. Moran, according to FEC data (collated at http://opensecrets.o...)
  your number one source of contributions for your 2006 campaign was the defense lobbying firm PMA Group. Its employees and PAC gave you $44,500.

PMA Group employs your former chief-of-staff Melissa Koloszar, so you surely can admit that you are aware of this lobbying firm.

Your number two source of contributions for your 2006 campaign was the West Virginia defense contracting firm ProLogic. According to its website (http://www.prologic-...) it does not have any offices in the 8th District. Yet ProLogic's employees and PAC gave Moran For Congress $28,200 in the 2006 election cycle.

Harpers Magazine, in a 4/26/06 article entitled "Inappropriate Appropriations" (http://www.harpers.o...),  notes that ProLogic is a client of PMA Group.

My question to you, Rep. Moran, is why do the employees, PAC and clients of the defense lobbying firm PMA Group give you so much money?

I again remind you that ProLogic does not have any offices in the 8th District, so it cannot be that they give you this money because of services that you provide to 8th District firms.

Could it be, Rep. Moran, that as a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee you are selling access?

Do all defense lobbying firms and their out-of-state defense contractor clients receive the same treatment from you regardless of whether they donate money to your campaign or not?

and ask Congressman Moran these questions yourself?  You complain an awful lot about how we're "Raising Moran" over here (actually, I disagree with Rep. Moran on trade, the bankruptcy bill, and several other areas), now here's your chance to put your mouth where your, well, mouth is!  Or not.  If not, though, spare us the whining about how we didn't ask Rep. Moran the questions YOU wanted to ask him.  Either that, or start your own Blog Talk Radio show; you certainly have a lot to say!

Ask him about the Tysons Tunnel project and specifically try to get a straight answer about the federal funding piece.  Is it at risk? Why/why not.

Ask him about his view on Iraq too.  Timetable benchmarks etc.

Thanks Lowell (and that Not Larry Dude) for putting up the audio.  Very good interview, and very good comments from Congressman Moran.

I am glad to hear that Rep. Moran has many good ideas and many strong opinions on thigs such as Gitmo and the Tysons tunnel.  He has my support on these issues.

Unfortunately, 30 seconds was all that was left for his comments on gun control, but his position was clear.  And wrong.  His comments on guns in contrast with his comments on other topics, where he mentioned the constitution no fewer than 10 times, was particularly odd.

I won't argue the points here again,  but just say thanks for your effort and for bringing a great new way to hear our reps address issues that are important to us all.

n/t