"Did you contact your Reps today?" Roll Call

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

1 on SC Militia

 

Yep I am quoting myself

 

Response to email sent for H. 3436 South Carolina Unorganized Militia

 

"

Thanks for calling my attention to H.3436. I was not aware it was introduced this past Tuesday; lots of bills are quickly read across the desk. I support the legislation and will join as a co-sponsor Tuesday when I return to the State House Tuesday. Thank you."

 

Everybody is busy and the information flow is high. Keep sending, in some cases it does help.

[Squishy 1,149]

Sent mails to the 4 original sponsors of H. 3436, the Unorganized Militia bill in South Carolina in support.

[SgtRaven 531]

Yep,

 

Followed from alternative e-mail address on Gun Ban:

http://www.nagr.org/obama_gun_control.aspx?pid=8a

[Remek 771]

All in. Letter to fed level officials:

 

 

I am writing again to urge you to oppose "combat" or "assault" style weapons. It has nothing to do with limiting gun crime. If it does, I would certainly entertain your rebuttal, but even the federal government's own conclusions said such bans would be ineffective in the future. Common sense dictates that it is not the tool, it is the person. I have no problem with reporting of mental health issues and criminal records and required checks for non-family/friend transfers, but really, everyone knows you should only enact laws that would be effective for what is desired. Please oppose any measure that limits access to any particular weapon to the law-abiding citizens of our country.

Focus on mental health reporting and criminal reporting to NCIS and inexpensive background checks for non-FFL sales. These would be effective measures, designed to attack the cause, rather than a randomly-associated tool. As a former scientist, and as a former law student, I can tell you, as you know, you do not shoot the messenger when you don't like the message. Don't harm the ability of the citizen to protect themselves, instead work to help everyone protect themselves.

Oh fudge! I wrote the first sentence incorrectly!

[RED333 1,025]

Sent this today

 

Leahy, LaPierre and the Vermont paradox
January 30, 2013|Steve Chapman

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing today where he questioned Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association about expanding background checks to cover private sales, which produced an interesting exchange. (The answer is no.)

Leahy is in a slightly awkward position for a couple of reasons. The first is that the bill proposed by prominent Democrats includes a ban on "assault weapons" that he declines to endorse. The second is that he's from Vermont.

Why does his home state matter? Because it seriously undermines the case for gun control. Advocates believe that permissive laws foster lethal violence and strict ones prevent it. But Vermont, despite its highly liberal reputation, has among the loosest gun laws in the nation.

No background checks, no limits on assault weapons or large magazines -- heck, you can carry a pistol openly without a permit. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives it an "F." But its homicide rate is less than one-third the national rate, and only two states have a lower homicide rate.

How come? Probably because laws are not the crucial variable. California gets an A-minus, but its murder rate is slightly above average. Utah gets an F and it is nearly as safe as Vermont.

The fact that is hard for many people to grasp is that it doesn't matter much how easy it is to get a gun if the people who get them are law-abiding. The danger comes when criminals get guns. But the people most affected by gun control laws are the people who pose the lowest threat.

Pat Leahy probably knows that.

So more firearm laws dont work, the more people that legally own a firearm is better. Enforce the laws that are on the book now.

[Remek 771]

Thanks, Red. Going to use your latest letter in the morning.

[scotheocelot 28]

Here is a response from one of my representatives:

 

"Thank you for contacting me regarding the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, D.C., I appreciate hearing from you.

 

The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms. Our Founders believed that the people's right to own firearms was an important check on the powers of the government and "necessary to the security of a free State." I couldn't agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.

 

The President's recent proposals on dealing with gun violence came in two very distinct parts: 1) executives actions that the President will be implementing unilaterally, and 2) making recommendations to Congress for laws that it should pass. Most of the planned executive orders are changes that are within the President's current powers to implement, namely:

 

1) Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

 

2) Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

 

3) Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

 

4) Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

 

However, there is at least one order I cannot support. President Obama wants to clarify that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes. Obamacare, however, states that no patient shall be required to disclose his or her own lawful storage or use of a firearm. This order could create confusion for a patient who believes he must answer his doctor's questions. I will adamantly oppose any executive order that I believe infringes upon duly enacted laws by the Congress or on our constitutional rights.

 

I also disagree with the President on his recommendations for laws Congress must pass. We know from experience that an assault weapons ban will have no meaningful effect on gun violence, as many of the changes that are implemented by such a ban are cosmetic in nature. Statistics demonstrate that a ban on particular weapons will not significantly decrease crime. Such a ban will, however, significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please feel free to contact me again in the future."

[Remek 771]

^^^^ excellent response, who was it?

[scotheocelot 28]

^^^^ excellent response, who was it?

 

R - Jim Inhofe

 

Oklahoma Senate

[Remek 771]

Went all-in again, also went my own direction. My letter was extremely long, but I had to yak, so here it is:

 

I am writing because the "common sense" solutions to gun control proposed by the democrats are not "common sense" and are counter to all the data on the record.

First, the reports are not available yet on the Newtown, CT, shootings. How can you possibly make a law to stop atrocities like this, when you do not know what happened? Making a law for the sake of making a law is not common sense at all. I don't know about you, but life as a scientist, as well as life experience, has taught me that you must know the facts before you react to it in a proper manner. Without this critical knowledge, at best we are guessing as to the problems involved.

Second, counter to the common-sense "logic" that has been proposed, the evidence is that banning access to firearms actually increases crime. We all know FL and AZ pioneered the increase in gun ownership and concealed carry, to answer their crime problems. We also know that it was wildly successful: crime plummeted upon the increased ownership and increased concealed carry. This caused several states, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, which you represent, to enact similar laws, and gun ownership increased, along with concealed carry, and crime plummeted, even in light of the massive economic downturn (which is obviously one of the greatest causes of crime: if I do not have, and I feel I need, I feel encouraged to steal). On the flip side, areas of the country which have the most strict gun laws, also have the most crime. The cities of LA, NY, and Chicago lead the way with the highest levels of crime and murder per capita. They have the most restrictive gun laws. NYC, which has improved, has done so under a police-state like force. People are randomly frisked, and invaded. The privacy of innocent people are thrown out the door, with the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. This is unacceptable in any free man's mind. To prove the point, NYC also paid $185 million, just in 2011 to settle suits for these illegal searches. Imagine how big that number would be for the federal level to do the same! Further, many argue that this is because guns come to the cities from "straw-man" purchases, or, in layman's turns, people who buy guns and bring them to the cities to sell them illegally. However, we cannot stop drugs from entering the country, so if we banned all guns, does anyone with "common sense" think we could really stop guns from doing the same? I am not against investing in better background checks, but to ban the gun is not the "common sense" solution again. I propose that not only are you NOT representing the citizens of Virginia by espousing/supporting such laws, but you are also NOT doing the right thing for American Citizens in general.

Now, what is common sense? Common sense is defined by Myriam Webster's Dictionary as: "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts". Common sense, then, to me, means (i) assessing the situation; (ii) identifying the core of the problem; and (iii) attacking the actual problem. Under this analysis, the solution is targeted to solve the problem, and with the most likely chance of de minimus alteration of other, unforeseen situations. Application to the present area comes down to, given that we do not know all the facts, people who perform mass-killings of children in schools. However, this is still a simplification. The facts are that the mass-killings can be performed with different tools, like other guns (e.g., VA Tech), or knives and/or hammers (e.g., Japan and China), or, given the clear logic here, any item that may be utilized as a weapon to achieve the same result. The facts are that that the killers have chosen to kill in a venue where there is no chance of resistance, gun-free school zones (or movie theatres in other parts of the country). The facts are that the children are defenseless in each case, and where they aren't children, and in all cases, the venue is one where there are no armed people. The facts are that, categorically, the killers were known by many to be mentally-ill, and extremely-so. That said, I think its easy to rule out the tool, because the tool used is not, in fact, a particular gun type, or even a gun, but may be a bomb, a hammer, a knife, and therefore, also anything that may be utilized as a weapon. Therefore, common sense says, if I ban a type of gun to solve the problem, then the person will choose a different gun, or other weapon, and if I ban all guns, the person will simply choose a different weapon, or obtain their weapon illegally, perhaps from a drug ring, with an expanded illegal-gun trade. Do we get rid of gun-free school zones? Well, there is some traction here: the possibility of guns being present certainly increases the deterrence factor. However, I would note that many parents are overly passionate, and often schools go too far with their policies. I am not sure it is a right mix. It might be worth investigating though. Do we arm people at the school? So, do we arm children to defend themselves? Ridiculous, as an adult we all know how children are not able to handle that type of responsibility. Do we arm teachers? I am not against it, but I seriously think it introduces distinct problems, vis-à-vis a child obtaining the teachers gun during the course of business. Too many variables. Do we have a security force in schools? I propose a security force in schools is a good mix. The security could be detached from the children with little interaction, and being professionally trained, they are much less likely to have trouble with kids, and teachers, and also be present for a concerted response and deterrence to future killings. I propose the security force to be one of the best checks against future attacks like these we are trying to prevent. As evidence, I point out that in every instance the killer in these instances kills themselves after being confronted with force. They knew they were going to die, or be paraded around and go to jail and be abused there for harming children, so it is logical to end their life before getting arrested. I also submit this is supported for these other mass killings. They either are unsuccessful in killing themselves and try to do so in jail, or are successful, and there is no further argument. In addition, the mall in Clackamass, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, stopped the killer before the shooting got larger than 2 people, simply by pointing his gun at the shooter. He did not even shoot, because, contrary to the statements of many, gun owners are responsible people, and he did not have a clean shot, as people were beyond the shooter. At that point, the killer went to a stairwell and shot himself. So, I think the only conclusion that can be reached is that the people who are doing these atrocities are mentally ill, and actually smart. They don’t want to be taken in. They only want to kill as many as possible before dying themselves. Therefore, a security force, designed to respond, and even check people into/out of the school is clearly an appropriate (i) deterrent; and (ii) response force, which will equate to the problem, and stop these atrocities from happening. In addition, it equates to the problem: stopping people from entering the gun-free school zones and killing our children, and it introduces the least amount of unforeseen repercussions. This is common sense.

Now, I want to address the magazine restrictions proposed. Let us use common sense again. First, the problem: people have access to magazines which can shoot many rounds at a time, and therefore, there is less need to change magazines during a mass shooting. I have to agree, to some extent. There will be an ever-so-slight increase in time between changing magazines. Does this equate to the solution though? I propose that common sense says no. The killers in these instances know what they are doing. The theatre shooting in Aurora had a shooter who also knew enough not to get too close to his crowd. Why? Because they could get close to him and stop him. These guys are mentally ill, not stupid. Next, in Virginia Tech, the shooter chose a very open campus, making it hard for anyone to get close to them, thereby allowing easy magazine changes with plenty of time to recover and get to committing more killings. Still further, in a school situation like Newtown, CT, the shooter has supreme confidence in their ability to change magazines at will. These children are way too young to do anything but hide. That leaves, in normal schools these days, 20-40 children per teacher. The shooter simply takes out the teacher, then goes to town. No chance of resistance, and by the time the police get there, even if he had 5-round magazines, the shooter could have killed many many children. I propose that the solution is a useless one as it does not equate to the problem: stopping mass killings in a venue of defenseless children, or in a venue chosen by the killer. I would go so far as to say, the killer could have used a break-open action gun, and load rounds individually, and still have killed many many people before anyone could have stopped him. Lets look at the repercussions now: the same decreased magazine size will also cause all (save the police) from having larger magazines. The problem here is that self-defense relies on magazine size, for real. Why does this differ from the school shooting? Because the other side is fighting back, and in fact, the aggressor. In those instances where they have a gun, they are not likely to have obeyed federal law and went with 5-round magazines, and moreover, they are shooting back. The defender therefore, has precious little time to reload, unlike the chosen venue of the mass-killings. The defender needs to have these larger magazines, if they choose to use them. Why? Because we cannot forecast the future, but the defender must do so whether they like it or not. Categorically, more rounds/magazine are therefore a good thing for the defender. In addition, if the government tells us we do not need a particular size magazine, the same government will be culpable every time the person is harmed and it is claimed that more rounds/magazine would have saved them from harm. So, I argue, in part because of these statements, that restricting the size of magazines is a bad thing.

Next, I would address the issue of “assault weapons” and banning them. Aside from the common sense addressed above, the proposed bills themselves are not common sense. As Senator Ted Cruz stated in the hearings on gun control, these “features” themselves do not make the guns any more deadly than any other gun. The bill itself, as we know, is based on a think-tank’s agenda to work to take guns out the hands of the population, on the basis of fear-mongering against guns which are among the most wildly popular guns in history. As District of Columbia v. Heller (US 2008) stated, guns must be unusual and dangerous to be not protected by the second amendment. These guns are very common. End of analysis. And this analysis is holding because the court itself never analyzed whether the handguns were “dangerous” in their decision. That means the legislative branch cannot infringe the right of the people to keep and bear these arms. Still further, the various “features” are ergonomic, they are not lethality-enhancing over the guns which are not banned. As such, it appears to me that the choice of these guns themselves is arbitrary and capricious. The only common thread here is the fact that there is an agenda to utilize their appearance to try to ban them. There is no common sense here. If there is, I welcome your rebuttal.

Now, lets turn to background checks. I do not think people at all oppose the idea of universal checking, nor do the people oppose mental health checks being required from what I see. However, there are concerns to this common sense approach. There are instances where the cost is prohibitive (e.g., when selling a $100 gun, you would have to pay an FFL at least $25 to do the transfer, and likely much more). The fee becomes exorbitant in these instances. There are instances where guns are transferred between friends and family. I don’t know about you, but I know enough about my family friends to know who to not transfer firearms to. Why should, in these instances, there be a requirement for checks? Perhaps for inheritances, but not between two people who know each other. Lastly, there is the problem of constructive registry. This is the key issue which is not being discussed, but is at the core of every gun-owners mind. All you need to do to confirm this is look on face book, and even ask on face book, and you will find the concern repeatedly discussed. So, given these “concerns” what is the “common sense” approach? I propose the common sense approach is the following: (i) make background checks internet based, allowing anyone to perform them, at a reasonable fee (like $5.00); (ii) excuse family/friend transfers which are done through inheritance; (iii) make it illegal to transfer, or even allow temporary possession to those reasonably known to the transferor to be mentally-ill or have a criminal record; and (iv) make the background checks provide a receipt to the transferor and transferee, and dump all information on the check, except in those cases where the background check finds that the transferee is not eligible for the transfer.

I firmly believe I have come up with a set of guidelines for achieving a much better result than those currently proposed and before the senate and/or congress. In addition, the effects are much broader than just stopping mass killings in schools, but would definitely be more effective at stopping all gun crime and all mentally-ill atrocities. It is not difficult, it is just “common sense”. Please use this common sense, and do not support agenda-based laws which utilize fear-mongering to attain results not equated to solving the problem. Instead support my proposals.

[Remek 771]

All in. meat of letter

 

 

Senator:

I will keep it simple today:

Oppositions (these are non-starters to any legislation for me):

1. Oppose restrictions of access to firearms for law-abiding citizens of the US.

2. Oppose restrictions on magazine size access for all law-abiding citizens of the US.

3. Oppose all restrictions on access to accessories for firearms for all law-abiding citizens.

4. Oppose all restrictions on ammo access for law abiding citizens of the US.

5. Oppose required NICS checks on people who are not family or friends for private firearm sales.

6. Oppose any NICS checks which are not anonymous and internet based, for a small fee. Report ONLY those checks that fail.

Promote/vote for (secondary to the oppositions, above):

1. Please put security forces in schools for our K-12 children.

2. Please require mental issues to be reported to NICS, with reasonable requirements on issues and length of time the mental issue remains on the record.

3. Please offer training in firearms safety and storage for all people.

4. Please promote laws that make people culpable for transfers or temporary possession by another of firearms by others who may be reasonably appraised to the individual transferring/lending the firearm that the other is mentally unstable or a criminal.

Thanks,

[pony_express1973 183]

Got this via e-mail today pay close attention to the last paragraph

 

 

February 5, 2013

 

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about protecting your second amendment rights.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States. In my view, these rights represent a coveted freedom and are among those important qualities that have enabled this country to remain a free and democratic one.

 

In your letter you mentioned strengthening mental health care and collecting better data. I too, believe that we must look at proposals to strengthen our mental health laws so that people receive treatment before they commit criminal acts.

 

I do not think there is a single cure to the seeming epidemic of gun violence our country has witnessed, of which Newtown is only the latest. Even in countries that have the strictest laws, gun violence and mass murder occur. As some background information for you, Pennsylvania already has a restrictive set of gun laws and regulations that were established under the Uniform Firearms Act approved during the Special Session on Crime in 1995. The act made sweeping changes to the existing laws of the Commonwealth relating to the sale, possession, lending or giving of firearms. For example, this Act significantly changed the law concerning the sale, possession, lending or giving of firearms. Before the new law was enacted, only persons who were convicted of violent crimes could be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Now, under the new law, the list of offenses prohibiting gun ownership has been expanded to include 37 different crimes, both crimes of violence and serious non-violent crimes.

 

Another notable aspect of Pennsylvania law, given the Newtown tragedy, is that Pennsylvania law prohibits ownership or purchase of a firearm by any person who undergoes an involuntary emergency mental exam as long as the examining physician certifies the need for ongoing care due to mental illness and by any person who is ordered to undergo extended involuntary emergency treatment after certification by a judge or mental health review officer. Both the National Instant Check System and the Pennsylvania Instant Check System screen potential firearm buyers to determine that they do not have criminal or mental health histories which would prevent their ownership of guns.

 

Pennsylvania is a "point of contact" state, which means the Commonwealth utilizes its own state background check system, in addition to the federal background check system, to determine if a person may legally purchase a firearm. Please keep in mind that neither system is a registry of people who own guns. Rather, the background check systems are only a record of people who are legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. The Pennsylvania Instant Criminal Background Check System (PICS) includes more than 500,000 mental health records that could prevent a dangerous person from purchasing a firearm.

 

Given all of the gun control laws already enacted in Pennsylvania, I intend to review any and all gun control proposals with careful scrutiny and to oppose what seems to be unreasonable control of an individual’s right to lawfully possess and use firearms. I believe that well-drafted legislation which is aimed at the criminal misuse of guns, while respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment, and especially increased enforcement efforts is the best way to address illegal gun violence. To this end, I intend to work hand in hand with members of all political parties to support sensible measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law-abiding Pennsylvania gun owners and sportsmen.

 

Please also be advised that I am a cosponsor of and plan to support House Bill 357 introduced by Representative Darryl Metcalfe, which would provide that any Federal law which attempts to register, restrict or ban a firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm in this Commonwealth shall be unenforceable in this Commonwealth.

 

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance to you on any state related matter in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Sandra J. Major

State Representative

111^th Legislative District

[Remek 771]

^^^^^^Sounds good, man! Am I missing something? Are you worried about "in this Commonwealth" language? I think thats a stretch. If its illegal in all states, its illegal in the Commonwealth of PA.

 

Did you read the proposed bill?

[Foxtrot Oscar 37]

Dear Mr. L,

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts about gun regulation. I appreciate hearing from you.

The shooting which took place in Newtown, Connecticut, saddens us all- without question it is a tragedy. However, we should not use it as a pretense to weaken our Constitutional rights by denying people the right to own firearms. Law-abiding citizens should not fall victim to additional laws and regulations, which will have no impact on reducing crime. I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right of an individual to protect themselves and their families. I will keep your concerns in mind as we discuss how to prevent violence, while remaining true to our core values embodied in the Constitution.

Thank you again for contacting me about this issue. To receive important updates on my work in the 27th district on New York and in Washington DC, sign up for the E-newsletter on my website at www.chriscollins.house.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

CHRIS COLLINS

Member of Congress

Edited February 7, 2013 by MolonLabe

[pony_express1973 183]

^^^^^^Sounds good, man! Am I missing something? Are you worried about "in this Commonwealth" language? I think thats a stretch. If its illegal in all states, its illegal in the Commonwealth of PA.

 

Did you read the proposed bill?

 

No Im happy because she states they will not inforce any bans in the commonwealth of Pa. Pennsylvania is in fact considered a commonwealth

[SgtRaven 531]

Yeah: just found out about re-zoning the district, bringing the old 'bama's boy David Price back.

 

!@#$ !!!!

 

 

That's OK. Such things just make us tougher.

Call, fax, write, stop by the local office.

Oh yeah, he will remember me.

[Squishy 1,149]

Today's letter;

 

Dear Sir,

I write to you today to reiterate and affirm my belief that everything possible must be done to keep the forces that would dismantle the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution at bay. The anti-Gun Rights forces are using every means at their disposal in their attempt to infringe on the rights of all law abiding Americans.

Using his bully pulpit the president along with his campaign mechanism 'Organizing for Action' and countless other well funded organizations are being brought to bear in this assault. The obvious purpose is to sway public opinion using emotion, vague, irrelevant and fabricated 'facts' to mislead the American public.

The unalienable right to bear arms, the right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment are inviolate and not subject to change based on opinion or what is politically expedient.

In the coming days the propaganda put forth by the left will grow more frequent and intense.

I ask you to stand firm for in this matter, there can be no compromise, NONE.

Respectfully,

[Ender 12]

Today's letter to folks at the State level:

 

 

Dear State official,

 

The letter below is from the Attorney General of South Carolina. I hope my elected officials here in Michigan share the same beliefs and have the strength to fight for those they represent.

 

Dear Mr. XXXXXX

 

The Founding Fathers made it very clear: the ability to bear arms is a fundamental right of citizenship in these United States. The America they created is a place where "We the People" are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property. We must not allow emotions to alter or abridge our fundamental constitutional rights.

 

As your Attorney General, I have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitutions of South Carolina and the United States -including the Second Amendment. I am fully committed to doing just that.

 

Like many South Carolinians, I am a gun owner. I am also the proud father of two toddlers. Many of us learned how to shoot and handle guns responsibly from our fathers. It is a tradition passed from one generation to another, and it's something I plan to pass along to my children. Taking away our constitutional rights will not make our children safer. It will make them less safe.

 

Like every parent, I want my children to be protected when they are in the classroom. We have a sacred obligation to look after children. That's why I strongly support training and arming resource officers in schools. It is also why I am opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach to gun control measures.

 

Some in Washington, DC are solely directing their focus on restricting the Second Amendment, without addressing factors which impact violence in America. For instance, pop culture continually promotes violence through bloody movies, graphic video games and song lyrics which encourage violence. Another key component of this problem is the ability of mentally ill people to gain access to firearms. We need to better identify these individuals and treat them, instead of chipping away at the Second Amendment. Limiting a constitutional right is not a form of mental health treatment.

 

This issue is best addressed by the states, not by an over-reaching federal government in Washington. Like most every other public policy issue, it is best to keep as much power as we can at the state and local level. I am a firm believer in both the Second and Tenth Amendments and I remain opposed to constant attempts by the federal government to erode them.

 

Sincerely,

Alan Wilson

 

This is an important moment in history. Now is the time for action. Now is the time to stand up to Washington in support of States rights. Now is the time to stand up for the rights of your citizenry under the Constitution.

 

Sincerely,

Xxxxxxx

[Remek 771]

I think I like Alan Wilson. I hope that Michigan stands strong! I was thinking to come vacation there with the family and do some fishing, and I don't want a gun-hating country so I can go in good conscience.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Remek

[RED333 1,025]

Great guys, some of us are making a diff.

Sent 5 today my self.

[Squishy 1,149]

Response to the letter I sent yesterday to Senator Tim Scott, this is the first response I've gotten from him. For a while after taking over for Jim DeMint he didn't have an email box set up.

 

Dear Mr. Fudd,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding any legislation or treaty that would ban civilian weapons. I certainly appreciate your input on this important issue and the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

I have not seen a ban on a weapon that I agree with, and like you, I am an ardent supporter of an individual's right to possess and bear arms. This right is unequivocally protected by the Second Amendment and is a cornerstone of our democracy.

As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and the federal government should not interfere with this right. You can be assured that I remain steadfast in my commitment to defend and uphold this fundamental freedom and will keep your concerns in mind when considering pertinent legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your perspective with me; I hope that you will continue to do so in the future. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff.

Sincerely,

Tim Scott
United States Senator

Edited February 7, 2013 by Squishy

[Jamie5ltr 1]

Same here I have responded to my state and federal elected officials. Unfortunatly here in MN I really don't have high hopes with the rise of proposed bills. Especially with an assualt weapons ban being discussed on a state level in Minnesota

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Same here I have responded to my state and federal elected officials. Unfortunatly here in MN I really don't have high hopes with the rise of proposed bills. Especially with an assualt weapons ban being discussed on a state level in Minnesota

Unfortunately that's what happens when your state elects a 2 bit comedian

 

Welcome to the forum by the way

[Squishy 1,149]

Unfortunately that's what happens when your state elects a 2 bit comedian

 

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"

 

Hey, that would get my vote!

[Remek 771]

All in again, senators letter:

 

 

Senator:

I am writing to urge you to oppose all restrictions on firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, and the like.

Not only is this in regards to the present bills being introduced by various members of the senate, but also with respect to the UN Small Arms Treaty. We cannot fulfill this treaty as it conflicts with the Second Amendment.

Instead, focus on security in schools, strengthened mental checks, and anonymous checks that are internet based for private transfers, which should only be required for non-friend/family transfers. Also, laws to hold people culpable for crimes committed with a transferred arm when the transferor is reasonably aware that the transferee may be a criminal or mentally-ill.

[Squishy 1,149]

Response from Governor Haley;

 

 

[Remek 771]

I swear, I am loving SC! You guys are winners!

[Squishy 1,149]

I swear, I am loving SC! You guys are winners!

 

We're blessed that's for sure. The creeping cancer of liberal/progressivism hasn't reached the state to any great degree. I guess it's because in certain circles we're thought of as being backward rubes. But that's ok, if it helps keep out the 'enlightened' it's all good.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Squishy

[SgtRaven 531]

One more round on fineshwine's AWB: done!

[SgtRaven 531]

Keep Pressure on the Liars, Whores, and Thieves:

 

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62339821

Gun grabbing, freedom stealers like Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Bloomberg and their likes actually fear us deeply because they know that as long as we are armed, they can never fully have their way with us.

See the videos of a couple of our fellow Americans who are not afraid to tell the gun grabbers that we know what they are up to and we will not stand by, allowing them to destroy our country or take our freedom.

The TRUTH and the CONSTITUTION are on OUR SIDE, so there is no reason to hide or shrink under the barrage of anti-gun rhetoric coming out of the mouths of elected officials. They either have no common sense or are actively attempting to enslave Americans by disarming us in any manner they believe they can get away with.

The key to defeating liars, whores, and thieves is to expose the truth, make well known their bad intentions, and spread our message that ANY gun control is NOT ACCEPTABLE because it only disarms the law abiding, shifting the balance of power on the street into the hands of the criminal and even worse, into the hands of the Government at every level.

Here are two, every day Americans who had the opportunity to tell it like it is to the gun grabbers and did it in a way that makes us all very proud.

Thank these two men who spoke the truth! Spread their message far and wide by forwarding this e-mail to everyone you know and asking them to do the same.

 

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza

Founder and Director

Front Sight Firearms Training Institute