"Did you contact your Reps today?" Roll Call

[magsite20 1,664]

Wrote Barry, both state senators, and my districts’ congressman, got what seems to be a standard form letter back from the ones with a R and no reply from the Ds. Form letters kind of support of the 2^nd amendment but no addressing of types of guns or mags.

 

Oh well the worlds full of cocksuckers and assassins and I don’t think the people we send to DC own guns.

[patriot 7,197]

Yep! All of 'em.

[Wolverine 10,360]

Here's what my liberal senator had to say:

 

Dear Mr. "Wolverine":

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin

levin.senate.gov

No hope of turning this guy. He's a true believer. He co-sponsored Feinstein's Ban Bill. This guy and Senator Debbie Stabenow have been thorns in my ass for years. You'd think the people of MI would wise up eventually, but no.....year after year, election after election. Ba.......hhhhhh!

[Squishy 1,149]

And he's quoting statistics that have been proven wrong. You have to wonder if he knows they are wrong...the answer either way isn't encouraging.

[Ronin38 2,117]

He's obviously in lock-step with the Brady Bunch and accepts their drivel as Gospel. He is beyond hope.

[Remek 771]

Emailed everyone and called my senators. Here is my federal official letter:

 

I am writing to ask that you oppose all gun/ammo/accessories restricting legislation.

I would stress that even the report from the FBI after the last "assault weapons ban" concluded that a future ban would probably have no effect, as the last one did not. I cannot abide by infringing the rights of people just so that an agenda may be pushed by our government. Further, DC v Heller 2008 made clear that common use was all that is required for determining that these firearms are protected under the second amendment. As we know this means that you cannot restrict them, as this is a constitutional republic.

Please instead focus on security at our schools, and NICS checks for transfers outside family/friends, which are internet based and do not leave a record of the transaction. Also, encourage reporting of crime and mental health issues to the database.

Wow, Carl Levin is a butt wipe.

[Squishy 1,149]

I sent Lindsey Graham a Thank You note. I think he did really well and appeared to be the most 'No Compromise' of all the Conservative Senators. He stated plainly he would not support the bill which I don't think anyone else did. He also said he didn't think believing an AR15 was useful for self defense made him an unreasonable person. He exceeded my expectations.

 

I hope he continues this tone throughout this mess.

 

He gets a lot of criticism but I think he deserves kudos for his input today.

[patriot 7,197]

Today's response:

 

 

I am writing on behalf of Senator Alloway in response to your email regarding recent gun control proposals. Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts and concerns.

As you know, there has been an increased amount of attention given to the issues of gun control, mental illness and violence in our society in recent weeks due to the tragic events on December 14th, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut. Words cannot express the sorrow that the Senator feels for each and every family affected by this senseless act of violence. This story has captured the attention of all levels of government. The Senator believes that steps must be taken to ensure that the people are protected - particularly the most innocent among us.

As a legislator, the Senator feels that it is his responsibility not only to help ensure the safety of Pennsylvanians, but also to protect their constitutional rights.

Passing legislation that takes away the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners, will not curtail the kind of violence we are aiming to eradicate. However, it must be a priority for all of us to ensure our children can live in a safe environment and that reasonable regulations are in place to ensure public safety. In order to do this, we must seek to address the motivating factors behind these senseless acts.

Not unlike many difficult problems we deal with in society today, this one is complex. We must carefully assess our current regulatory policy concerning firearms, evaluate and potentially change how we deal with issues such as mental health and take a hard look at the security needs in our schools. Appropriate changes in these areas will move us toward reducing the frequency of these violent events, while continuing to maintain our 2nd Amendment rights.

With that being said, I want to assure you that Senator Alloway will continue to stand firm on his support of the 2nd Amendment and will not support legislation that will infringe on your constitutional rights as citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and concerns on these very important issues. The Senator sincerely appreciates your opinion on these matters and will keep them in mind as legislation is introduced.
Should you have any additional thoughts and concerns regarding this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact the office.


Jeremy Shoemaker
Communications Director
Office of Senator Richard Alloway II (PA-33)
717-264-6100 - Office
717-414-6783 - Mobile
JShoemaker@pasen.gov

 

 

...and that asshole Casey's usual non-answer.....

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about executive orders issued by President Barack Obama. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you may know, a presidential executive order is an order that carries the full force of law and usually intends to help agencies of the executive branch manage operations in the federal government. Executive orders have legal authority in part because many laws passed by Congress confer a degree of discretion to the President in their implementation. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Some of the most famous include President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War, which freed slaves in the Confederate states, and President Dwight Eisenhower’s order to desegregate public schools in 1957.

Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has issued 139 executive orders. During their respective administrations, President George W. Bush issued 291, President Bill Clinton issued 364, President George Bush issued 166 and President Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders. Some have challenged the constitutionality of executive orders but, since 1789, only two have been overturned by the courts. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor executive orders closely as I work to pass legislation that benefits Pennsylvania.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Edited January 30, 2013 by patriot

[RED333 1,025]

3 today.

I dont care if I get a reply or not, I just send them, as said before by Squishy,

1 wont change a mind, but millions will.

Edited January 30, 2013 by RED333

[Remek 771]

Hey Guys, post your letters too! the ability to cut and paste saves me a lot of time when trying to convey an idea, and I really need the help: this old dog is short of new ideas!

I fear Rep. Tim Kaine may be changing his tune. He no longer as an option of "gun control" for the options on his email response form.

correction: Senator Tim Kaine.

[Remek 771]

Sent this letter to Senator Tim Kaine, and slightly modified versions to my other officials.

 

Senator Kaine:

I have written and rewritten, and I notice I have received one tepid response from you, and you have now removed "gun control" as a reply option on your web page. I do not know why you would do this, and it is causing me some worry.

Please keep in mind, when reading my response, that we are actually a very safe society as it is, and have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Something must actually be going right given this, and to simply pass laws in a reactionary fashion that does not equate to the problem to be solved, seems unwarranted at best, nefarious at worst.

　

I want to stress again with you, the arguments provided for gun control are simply illogical, and fear based, rather than rational common sense approaches to solving the problems at hand.

1. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 US 570 (2008) provides a litmus test, which is part of the holding, that the test for those arms protected under the second amendment. The test of one of "unusual and dangerous". In Heller, the decision is based solely on the finding that "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster." Clearly, the holding only hinges on the "unusual" part of the litmus test. Therefore, those weapons sought to be banned or restricted by the present attacks on the second amendment are protected. I say this because, clearly, these same weapons presently under attack include not only handguns as protected by Heller, but also include those that are the most purchased weapons today, and make up a very large segment of weapons in possession of gun owners today. There is simply no way come to the conclusion that these are not protected firearms/ammo/accessories.

2. Fear mongering and lies have permeated the public. Essentially, every time arguments are brought forth by gun-ban proponents, they talk about how taking these guns will reduce crime, violent crime, and most importantly, gun crime in our schools. They talk about several issues to promulgate our fears. First they discuss how getting rid of these guns will remove the tools to commit these crimes. Such is a falsehood. The FBI and the LEO studies conducted on the last "Assault Weapons Ban", found that no significant difference would be had by continuing that ban, or instituting another. If we are not going to listen to our own studies performed by our own experts, why do we have them perform studies in the first place? Moreover, as every gun owner knows, and as most people know, the gun is tool. Similar atrocities have been committed with handguns, which are more easily concealable, and actually more powerful than most "assault weapons". Next, people say "if we can save even one persons life, it will be worth it". This argument is one of fear, fails to value our constitutionally-guaranteed "Liberty", and is incorrect. It has been said many times, and quoted from Benjamin Franklin "Those would trade in their freedom for protection, deserve neither." This is a truism. People, however much acting in fear, do fear a police state more than anything else. Next, even giving up these arms would do nothing more than to empower the criminals/mentally-ill, and cause some to change the "tool" of their nefarious deeds for example, in England, they now have crime gone through the roof, by gun-wielding people, and home robberies when people are home,. We know bombs have been used here in the US, and knives, hammers, and cleavers in other countries (e.g., China and Japan), to effect similar killings in schools. Therefore, it is also clear that this measure is not equated to solving the problem, but only leads to a situation where another person chooses another arm, whether it be a non-banned gun, a knife, hammer, or other tool, to effect the same nefarious end. No, in the end, this is fear mongering utilized to obtain a goal, that goal being to take away the arms of law abiding citizens of the US. We do not buy insurance every time an insurance tugs at fears of possible damage, and here, we should not act to insure safety when the solution does not equate to solving the problem. I believe therefore, that until we can come to agreement that the response is the most effective at resolving the fear, with the least trampling on the freedom of the citizens of this country, we should avoid making laws. Even the “experts” paraded in front of the commission yesterday, were wrong. The panel at yesterday’s meeting about these “assault weapons” was nonproductive. Essentially, there were many emotional pleas to do things, but whenever an “expert” was brought up on stage, no logical argument could be made that the weapons being targeted would produce an effect on safety, in complete agreement with the studies of the FBI and LEOs conducted on the last “Assault Weapons Ban”. At best, the arguments were that “if we had less guns, there’d be less guns to deal with, making it safer for the police to deal with any situation.” Pardon me, but this is nothing but a trampling on our rights. If the police want safety, maybe they should leave their chosen profession. Moreover, all of these police experts are at total odds with the droves of police and states that have formally stated they will not enforce any bans. If it really were a simple choice of making police jobs safer, we should do this? We do not live in a police state, and therefore, the police are not a priority over our freedoms. It is bad enough that the last few administrations have trampled on our rights (NDAA, Patriot Act, wiretapping, secret laws, detainment, etc.), do not allow them to strip away our last line of defense from an ever-overreaching government. Do not give in to this fear mongering.

3. Getting rid of guns would only make it so the non-law-abiding have guns. Obviously, the majority of people will turn in their guns if they are forced to. However, there is simply no reason to believe that a criminal or a mentally-ill individual will give away their weapons. Criminals are criminals, and what they do is break the law. Whether caught with a gun or not, they will commit the crime, and therefore, they will just as soon carry the gun with them. The mentally ill cannot recognize the law, and therefore, they will also just as soon keep their guns. In places like England, where gun law restrictions have essentially gotten rid of all guns, the country’s violent crime rates run at twice the rate of the United States, per capita. Why? I think the answer is found in the fact that those in England who have guns are fewer, and therefore, criminals have less worry about resistance. The flip side is seen in the US, where concealed hangun permits have lowered crime in every state they are enacted (including our own Commonwealth), and , it should be noted, this is concurrent with the increased failure of our economy, one of the major effectors of crime. When a criminal wants to commit a crime, they are smart enough to do it when and where there will be little resistance. Just like any predator, criminals do not want to be harmed when they bring down their prey. To remove these guns simply increases the chance that a person will be robbed, killed, or otherwise victimized by a criminal (and a complicit government).

Now, let me propose REAL solutions.

1. Put security in schools. The gun-free school zones are clearly making victims of our children. I know we all want our children’s experience in early life to be fun and fluffy, but I do not see how a security team/individual will change this. In addition, this gets at the real core of the instant problem, that being attacks upon innocent and defenseless children. As stated above, these predators choose their places of attack carefully. They do not go to areas where people are armed (because they might be shot before their deeds take place), they do not choose public buildings that have security (because they will be caught and stopped before any crime can take place), and they do not choose police stations (because there will be retaliation).

2. Institute internet-based, required NICS and mental health checks, for people to transfer firearms to people that the transferor does not know. The real problem here is that people get hold of handguns who should not be allowed handguns. While there may be some people who slip through the cracks, the vast majority of people are caught when purchasing a gun utilizing a NICS check. There is no reason to check those who know the person they are transferring from, because this can be tracked. Moreover, mental-health checks need to be required. This can all be bolstered by laws about knowingly transferring to a person who is mentally-ill or a criminal. Of course, proper enforcement should provide a receipt to the transferor and transferee, and lose all records of the transaction from the computer database, should it be found OK in the NICS check, in order to protect the rights of individuals and not infringe on our second amendment rights, constructively providing a gun registry.

3. Provide education to all individuals in our school systems and immigration system, on the proper use, storage, transport, and who not to let possess your firearms, to all individuals in these systems. As we know, our school system (as well as our immigration system) is meant to make better citizens. And therefore, it is logical that the right (to keep and bear arms), being an integral part of our constitution, should be taught properly to people, and people should know their rights, as well as their responsibilities under their liberties. Further, ignorance of the mechanical operation of guns is a poor substitute for safety. Whenever a child or uneducated person comes across a gun, or ammunition, they should know what to do with it, and how to take it “out of play” for their safety as well as those around them.

4. The government should start an awareness program, offering training to people on the practical use of firearms. There should be an avenue for the first-time gun-owner to find out what type of gun best suits their purpose, and how to use it properly for their own purposes. Without such training being offered, it is hard to argue anything more than new people are entering the market with guns, and have no idea of how to be practically responsible with them.

I propose that these moves would be much more effective than the present illegal trampling of our constitution by the federal government.

Sincerely,

Edited January 31, 2013 by Remek

[scotheocelot 28]

Joined the NRA, NAGR and emailed all my representatives today. Thanks Squishy for providing a good base.

[SgtRaven 531]

Another reason to tap your Lawmakers:

 

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

 

 

 

Second Amendment Protection Petition

Whereas: Barack Obama is exploiting the recent tragedy in Connecticut to further his anti-gun agenda; and

Whereas: All empirical evidence, as well as plain old common sense, shows that gun control does not prevent violence and only leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against it; and

Whereas: The Second Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Whereas: Pro-gun Americans like me strongly oppose new unconstitutional gun control schemes and will be paying close attention to our members of Congress;

Therefore: As your constituent, I DEMAND you oppose any and all new gun control schemes, including but not limited to a new "Assault Weapons" Ban or "High-Capacity" Magazine Ban.

[patriot 7,197]

Yes, I bugged them again today. I'll bet they're getting mighty sick of this!

[Ronin38 2,117]

Another reason to tap your Lawmakers:

 

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

 

 

 

Petition to Impeach President Obama:

Whereas: Barack Obama is exploiting the recent tragedy in Connecticut to further his anti-gun agenda; and

Whereas: All empirical evidence, as well as plain old common sense, shows that gun control does not prevent violence and only leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against it; and

Whereas: The Second Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Whereas: Pro-gun Americans like me strongly oppose new unconstitutional gun control schemes and will be paying close attention to our members of Congress;

Whereas: Pres. Obama's anti-gun bills clearly are in violation of the 2nd, 4th and other Amendments to our Constitution, demonstrating that he has clearly violated his Oath Of Office;

Therefore: As your constituent, I DEMAND you oppose any and all new gun control schemes, including but not limited to a new "Assault Weapons" Ban or "High-Capacity" Magazine Ban, and file Term of Impeachment against this President.

 

Fixed!

[SgtRaven 531]

RE:

 

Fixed!

 

O-ops!

Sorry about my typo.

Thanks for watching over!

[RED333 1,025]

Yes, I bugged them again today. I'll bet they're getting mighty sick of this!

Yep me as well

4 today, 2 firearm, 1 illegal immigrants, and 1 for "NO" to Chuck Hagel

[Remek 771]

Also, signed the NRA-ILA's petition against the UN small arms treaty, and sent them another $25. I am a sucker for a cause. The problem here is it is not deductible. Oh well.

[patriot 7,197]

....and a big left mouse drumroll on Rand Paul's petitions!

[Remek 771]

^^^ did that too, a few days ago. Rand is doing a great job. I bet his dad's proud.

[SgtRaven 531]

Another good reason to bang into their doors:

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62370401

 

 

 

Gun Owners of America:

 

Feinstein’s Gun Ban to Affect Millions of Law-abiding Gun Owners.
But Universal Background Checks still pose the greatest threat to gun owners right now!

Late last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein reintroduced her much anticipated gun ban. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee spent several hours discussing her bill and other gun control proposals.

Her bill (S. 150) would ban millions of shotguns, rifles and handguns that Americans legally own, and possibly -- depending on statutory interpretation -- could ban all magazines of whatever size. It would do this by supercharging the 1994 semi-auto ban by:

* Banning all semi-autos with just one cosmetic feature (pistol grip, forward grip, folding stock, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, threaded barrel);


* Banning all semi-autos with fixed magazines of over 10 rounds (but see below as to how a sneaky "loophole" may use this to ban ALL magazines of any size);


* Banning any part that is designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-auto (use your imagination concerning what parts might help you shoot faster with greater accuracy);


* Banning all "AK types," "AR types," or any "variant (i.e., any weapon which is similar to most of the popular firearms in America -- and use your imagination with respect to what is similar enough to be a "variant");

* Banning all Glocks (because there is a full-auto version which these are, arguably, a variant of);


* Allowing for grandfathering and transfer of semi-autos (but prohibiting the transfer of magazines and prohibiting the transfer of semi-autos without a Brady Check); and

* Banning all magazines that can be "readily restored ... [or] converted" to accept more than 10 rounds. (QUESTION: Does "readily" modify "converted" or does it merely modify "restored"? How will the ATF interpret this? If it’s the latter, the bill will ban ALL magazines of whatever size.)


While Feinstein’s gun ban would be horrendous, if enacted, there are many reasons to believe that it faces an uphill climb in the Congress. And this means the most dangerous threat to gun owners right now is the expansion of background checks to cover ALL PRIVATE GUN SALES.

So our Senators need to hear the American people saying that NO GUN CONTROL is acceptable.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and urge them to OPPOSE all the gun control that is currently on the table: the Feinstein gun ban (S. 150), Universal Background Checks and all the President’s initiatives. The only “gun proposal” that we will support is repealing the Gun Free School Zones gun ban!

Edited February 1, 2013 by Sgt. Raven

[Remek 771]

Ran down the line, all fed level officials, all state officials, and state officials on key bills under consideration.

 

The letter was short and sweet, so no posting today (basically: please stand against all gun legislation, focus on security in schools and identifying and treating the mentally ill.

[patriot 7,197]

Again, all fed and state, multiple issue. Gun control, immigration, deficit, etc.

 

BUG THEM!!!

[RED333 1,025]

Thanks guys, sent 3 to day, all 3 firearm.

[Remek 771]

Contacted everyone today. Here is my letter, in generic format.

 

I am writing to ask that you focus on solving the problem at hand that elicited the present reactionary measures to ban guns to be considered. Banning guns does not equate to the problem, because the gun is the tool, and the problem is the person. As an allegory, if drunk drivers are the problem, it is not the type of automobile we go after, but the drunk drivers themselves.

It is clear in the many incidents that the people involved were mentally ill, and there is much evidence that antidepressants are a major causative agent. Again, we are left with the mentally ill as being the problem, not the gun. This is emphasized by places like China, where all guns are prohibited, and they perform the mass killings, but use knives and hammers instead.

I therefore propose that these types of legislation simply do one thing: they force another tool to be used. The present attack on scary-looking versions of guns do not equate to the problem, so it will fail. What does this do? It means that another form of gun will be used by these same people, if they cannot get the gun illegally, leading to another infringement on our rights under the second amendment, pointing our fingers at the type of guns most used in these types of scenarios. In the end, its a slippery slope, and actually the second step in the slope, as the first step was the banning of fully-automatic weapons. So, discounting this argument is not really a logical response.

Given all of this, it seems to me that the "common sense approach", is to go after identifying the mentally-ill and stopping them from possessing guns. I am not against checks for mental illness, and I am not against anonymous checks, internet based, that provide receipt, and only report those checks which fail. Also, laws to prohibit gun owners from reasonably knowing another is mentally ill from possessing your firearm seem more than reasonable. I am also for training, which could be offered by way of internet, and providing this information, to allow purchase of a gun.

However, the single most effective method for reducing gun violence in our schools against our children is that of security. Once the mentally ill person knows that the schools are protected, it changes the whole dynamic. Suddenly, they realize that they cannot enter the school with firepower that is unmatched at the school, and they will not go. Its clear that these guys always shoot themselves when they are under fire, and therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that being mentally ill, but not stupid, they will not attack our children with any weapon if security is in the school.

Having given you a reasoned, and truly "common sense" approach, I hope you will use these arguments and continue to protect the second amendment, or at least rebut my argument to show me how me I am wrong.

Please oppose gun control legislation.

[RED333 1,025]

1 on Hagel, 2 on firearms, 1 on spending.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

1 on SC Militia

Edited February 2, 2013 by Dad2142Dad

[unclejake 428]

Several times a week! Thanks for y'all posting yur letters, that way it's not like we're sending the same thing over and over again!

[RED333 1,025]

4 today, firearms, government spending, immigration, no to Chuck Hagel

[Remek 771]

simple note sent: don't restrict firearms/accessories in any way.