Jump to content

"Did you contact your Reps today?" Roll Call


Recommended Posts

Dear Sir,

I understand that being in Washington you have access to information the average citizen does not. In this light and as a constituent who voted for you I have some questions;

  • Why are current gun control proposals focusing on weapons that only account for 3.5% of gun deaths? Is the remaining 96.5% unimportant?
  • Why are prosecutions on the Federal level of gun related crimes down by 40 percent?
  • Why is attorney General Eric Holder refusing to cooperate with Congress regarding the Department Of Justice program that allowed the deliberate trafficking of assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels?
  • Why is there no recognition of the fact that in an alarming number of school shootings over the last few years the perpetrators were using Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) which are known to increase aggressive and violent behavior?


I believe that the answers to these questions will provide much needed information and insight into the current gun control debate.

Can you please answer these questions?

 

Respectfully,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 726
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sgt. RavenI started this thread a bit over 2 years ago, my hat is tipped to all that have keep it going. I would like to give a big thanks to Sgt. Raven for keeping it going as long as it has. I hav

Just got a response from my senators office:   Dear Mr. Scotheocelot, Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am

Dear Sir, In the ongoing Gun Control debate I hope by now you have seen that those Americans who believe in the right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment are a force to be reckoned with in this cou

Posted Images

Dear Senator Scott,

I'm glad to see that there is now a way to get in touch with you via the web. I am a constituent of yours in the 1rst District and I voted for you in 2010 and 2012.

I wish you well in the Senate and rather than burden you with a litany of topics now that I am able write to you I wish to touch on the one I feel is most important at this point in time, the issue of the full on assault by the Left on Gun Rights and the 2nd Amendment. While there are many important issues facing our nation, in my humble opinion there is not one more important than the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

As you know this is not about hunting, target shooting or the right to pursue a hobby or pastime.

It is about nothing less than the right of the citizens in this country to protect themselves against any threat be it common criminals or a tyrannical, overreaching government. I feel that without this right, none others matter as what good is it to have the right to free speech, protection against unlawful search and seizure, freedom of religion etc. if one is dead? How can we be free in the pursuit of happiness if we must hide behind locked doors because our streets and neighborhoods are not safe for our families?

Many scoff at the idea that we need protection from government, that in 2013 we are more "civilized" than we have ever been. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. With the breakdown of the family, the lack of personal responsibility and the abandonment of the principles this country was founded on I have no doubt we have actually moved away from being more civilized. And every day it becomes more and more clear that this government seeks to rule us rather than serve us.

The Left has shamelessly played on the emotions of the American people because the facts are not on their side. The facts clearly show that Gun Control laws DO NOT work. And while they offer the panacea of even more laws that will have no effect, the real causes of such tragedies as Sandy Hook go unaddressed.

I ask you in the strongest terms to stand with me and my fellow law abiding gun owners against this tyranny. We need strong voices that will make the truth known and debunk the misinformation and outright lies being put forth by those who would deny us our God given rights.

I know we can count on you.

Respectfully,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent two letters to each of my senators and representative. Sent to more letters to each of my delegate and senator in my state. Sent a letter to my local sheriff. And finally, I sent a letter to the President of the United States as follows:

 

I am writing to express my dismay with your reframing of our rights as citizens as expressed by the Second Amendment.

I knew from being in law school myself that the Second Amendment has not to do with hunting traditions. I am perfectly aware that you must know the same.

Please be honest with the American public and inform them as to what the Second Amendment really is about. Tell our public with this US Supreme Court has ruled with regards to arms.

Please also take a common sense approach to deterring future minds such as those that occurred like the Newtown Connecticut tragedy. The single most positive and proven effective measure is to provide security.

The balance of the measures infringing on our Second Amendment rights, must by needs of their action, admit themselves with tyranny. It appears to me that the United States Supreme Court cannot allow the government to determine the tools of reprisals against that governments tyranny.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter to 'bama's girl Kay Hagan (Democrat, of course).

 

 

 

Dear U.S. Senator Hagan,
As your constituent, I urge you to stand for the rights of The People, instead of your own party or President's interests.
You were elected to represent your very own "We The People", and not Democratic Party or special interests' groups.
You swore to uphold the Constitution, including our Rights to Keep and Bear; therefore, please look down the woods and green pastures of North Carolina first, before following the call from the concrete jungles of DC.
I certainly hope to hear from you, and looking forward to your response.
I would also be interested to meet you in person and have a friendly chat about how you could serve your Constituency in true meaning of the Republic.
Most Sincerely.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To Senator Scott and Senator Graham;

 

Dear Sir,

Tomorrow will see the full unveiling of Senator Diane Feinstein's gun control package and it promises to be the most focused attack on the rights of American gun owners and the Second Amendment to date.

Regardless of what is said and what is put forth Senator Feinstein's (and others) true intentions are clear, she has stated them publicly;

"The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves."

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

We know what she is after, we know what her goal is and no amount of 'common sense' and 'for the children' rhetoric will change it.

We will not accept a go along to get along or strategy of compromise on this issue.

Those who would deny us our freedom and right to protect ourselves are more than willing to take what we give them today, and then tomorrow come back for more.

THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

As always, we are watching.

Respectfully,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrote my federal senators, federal representative, state delegate and senator, and sheriff. Here's my legislator's letter today:

 

Dear :

I am writing today to respectfully request that you oppose any legislation infringing upon my second amendment rights.

Instead, I request that you try to refocus the discussion to constitutionally legal restrictions. As the Supreme Court has said, restricting the criminals and the mentally ill from owning firearms is acceptable. While DC v. Heller does suggest that it may be possible to restrict certain arms, that finding is clearly dicta. In fact, at best, the court has indicated that the tests of "in common use at the time" and "dangerous and unusual" are the criteria to look to in order to determine if specific firearm should not be protected. As we all know these firearms, i.e., those under the nebulous definition of "assault weapon", or one of the most common firearms at the present time. Moreover, I am at a complete loss as to how a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, for a magazine capacity of any particular size is in any way unusual and dangerous. For example, with regard to the magazine, the standard size around the nation is 30 rounds. Lastly, I am again at a loss as to how these are unusual, or any more dangerous than a seven round, or a 10 round magazine. We all know that the category "assault weapons" is a completely artificial one changes at the discretion of those who wish to restrict weapons. This in itself evidences an arbitrary and capricious decision.

Given the basic logic and guidance provided by the United States Supreme Court, it is clear that any of these proposed laws against these weapons were any of these weapons currently in use is illegal under the Constitution.

Therefore again, I propose that you refocus the discussion to mental health checks as well as criminal checks and write legislation to effect such. Still further I propose legislation the written that requires the president to enforce the current laws already passed. And of course, I fully endorse legislation to provide security for my children at school. The mentally ill are not stupid and that is why they choose these gun free zones for their horrible crimes. Clearly it is the person and not the tool and they will be most effectively deterred from their crimes by the presence of security.

As a final statement, I personally would not be against a completely anonymous check for the transfer of all firearms. Such could be done on an Internet-based system, providing a receipt, and dumping all records of the check having actually done made. Obviously, the concerns of the firearms owners stems from records being told by the government as to who owns what firearms. In fact, if the government does not know who owns what firearms, it is a force multiplier against tyranny, because the government must assume we all own firearms. Therefore an anonymous system would seem most effective to provide protection against the criminal element in the mentally ill obtaining firearms, as well as protection against possible government tyranny.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent one to each everyday since december 15...and some days 3 or 4. Even been harrasing my freinds to send, sending them template letters with links to congress.org for state and local. Been posting updates on facebook. Most people on facebook are dipshits more interesting in watching jerry springer, or jersey whore whatever the fuck it is they play on TV now..Oh well I'll keep calling and Sending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...wish I could write like that

 

You don't have to.....just copy, paste, edit, send. The reason I post letters here is in case someone might want to use them. If you agree with the sentiment, use it. Or adjust it until it does.

Edited by Squishy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out this response from Sen. Bill Nelson. I didn't vote for this prick, BTW.

 

 

Please do not reply to this e-mail. If you need to send another message to Senator Nelson, please use the form on his Web site: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email
Dear Mr. U.:
Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.
I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.
I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Bill Nelson
P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

 

Now, I had to re-insert that strike thru portion. It appears on the e-mail from his office, but, did not show up here when I cut and pasted it. What a fuckin' tool.
Edited by John U.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
...wish I could write like that

 

You don't have to.....just copy, paste, edit, send. The reason I post letters here is in case someone might want to use them. If you agree with the sentiment, use it. Or adjust it until it does.

O I do copy and paste, great letters here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All in again today: every elected official.

 

Letter:

 

Dear XXXX:

I am writing to urge you to oppose any legislation that imposes further restrictions on the types of firearms and/or firearm accessories we citizens may keep and bare.

We in Virginia have been one the States to lead the way in showing that increased gun ownership leads to lowered crime, and violent crime, in particular. Despite a floundering economy and lack of jobs, one of the primary causative agents of crime, we have experienced a continued decline in crime. The only other causative agent which has changed from the past, is gun ownership. Gun ownership has soared. Current to this increased gun ownership, crime and violent crime have continued to decrease. It seems hard, therefore, to ignore the fact that gun ownership deters crime.

Still further, it is impossible to determine what size magazine is “enough” or “needed” in any particular circumstance. For the law abiding citizen, it must be one of preference of the individual. As we know, there is no “requirement” for the law enforcement authorities to “protect” any individual, but only that the society as a whole is so-required to be protected. In addition, as is well known, Law Enforcement usually is not there when crimes take place. They typically only end up taking the clues and searching for the perpetrator. That leaves the individual him/herself for assuring their own safety, as has been affirmed by the supreme court. So, we are left with the logic as to how we want to protect ourselves, and how much? If I am restricted to 10 rounds, or 7, or whatever, I am therefore left to worry about whether I have time to switch magazines, or have time to refill my magazine when it is integral to the gun. If I am left with carrying around 1000000 round magazines, I am left with the decision of whether I am able to handle the bulk and weight on my rifle or handgun. Still further, by restricting to a particular limit, the government would, in effect be saying “you will not meet a situation where you need this”, thereby opening itself to legal suits when the situation happens. It is impossible to foresee the future, but it is also categorically true that, eventually, there will be more than 10 (or 7, or whatever) shots needed to repel a crime. It is clear magazine size is a personal decision.

When it comes to the weapon itself, again it is a personal decision. Some people prefer handguns, while other prefer rifles. Still others change weapons preferences according to the circumstance. For example, while a handgun might be adequate defense for a tight environment, like in a house, a long rifle might be more suited to longer distances and open ranges. Still further, collapsible stocks provide a hybrid, allowing use in tighter environs, while also allowing use as a rifle for longer distances outside. Pistol-like grips are similarly useful when the stock is collapsed, as it provides a more stable platform. One might liken the modern musket to an SUV. It provides a cross-over between environs where it is normally not useful.

Now, returning to the fact that the government (legal enforcement) is not responsible for our individual safety, and that, instead, we are, as individuals, so-responsible for our own safety, it would be hard to argue that these types of restrictions do anything but cause more crime and leave the government open to more legal suits for making a decision they should not have made. Criminals do not obey laws, that’s what makes them criminals.

Last, with regard to bans, the previous ban was ineffective, according to our own FBI, and legal enforcement agency studies opinions. I have to ask: why not listen to the studies? Why have a study if you are not going to consider and alter your approach to be effective?

I suggest you oppose all restrictions, and instead, focus on the finding and treatment of the mentally ill and the criminals of our society. After all, these are the causative agents themselves.

Sincerely,

Me

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dear Xxxxxxxx,

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about legislation and actions being considered to address gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

In the wake of the tragic mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and right at home in Clackamas Town Center, I have heard a wide range of views from many Oregonians on gun policies and gun violence. Indeed, I am deeply saddened by these senseless shootings and the loss of innocent lives.

 

As I consider proposed policies regarding guns, I will have two perspectives. As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I will ask if the proposals meet the constitutional test. Second, I will ask if the proposals will make a difference in the tragic situations we have witnessed. In short, I will be digging into the facts and research about each of the proposals on the table with these perspectives in mind.

 

It is appropriate in light of the recent tragedies that this is a national discussion, and I'm glad you are sharing your thoughts with me. I will keep your views in mind and hope you will keep me informed about the issues that concern you.

 

 

All my best,

 

Jeffrey A. Merkley

United States Senator

 

Response from Oregon

I don't trust this guy one little bit but if this is actually true he won't support Fineswine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over a dozen contacts to my reps today.

The same as I've been doing for quite some time now.

Come home from work, bitch @ politicians, then surf for a bit.

Edited by patriot
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sent this letter, concerning the Vice-Moron:

 

Dear Sirs,

The Evening News is rife with comments made by VP Joe Biden that were somewhat questionable in their content for the discussion at hand. I am truly in disbelief and insulted by his comment today during his so-called "Fireside Chat" about gun-control. This is the comment in question:
"“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

Anyone who knows the basics with firing ANY type of rifle will be able to hit something the size of a paper plate at 50-100 yards. This range is much more difficult to obtain with accuracy with a shotgun, even using slug rounds. A person standing "safe and secure" on their front porch could easily be shot by someone with ANY kind of rifle from 100 yards. Many people, especially smaller ladies, have a difficult time handling a shotgun due to the recoil. A semi-automatic rifle has much less recoil and is EASIER to handle.

During the last "Assault Weapons Ban" period, two very bad men with ILLEGALLY obtained Assault Rifles (fully-automatic firing, vs. semi-automatic like a so-called "assault weapon") robbed a bank in Los Angeles, California. Ask the Police Officers who were there how effective shotguns and 9mm. pistols were against those two evil men. It was the Police Officers who were running to the gun stores to try to obtain semi-automatic rifles to attempt to stop the threat from those two!

Ask the lady who defended her rural home from 5 intruders how effective a double-barrel shotgun would have been!

I do not know what kind of example the Vice President was trying to illustrate with his comment, but he appeared to be completely ignorant and ill-informed on the subject at hand.

I am dismayed someone with so little working knowledge of the subject is in charge of the committee to curb firearm-related violence in this country.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 filisbuster, 1 planes and tanks, calls to Alexandes and Corker, 1 from the NRA site, 4 from the Gov site on firearms.

And 1 to

Minneapolis reveals General Mills' support of gun summit

 

http://minnesota.pub...ous-gifts.shtml

 

Here tell them what you think about it!

http://www.generalmi.../ContactUs.aspx

 

Told them they lost over 2 million customers today for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My response from Claire McCaskill - Libtard Senator from Missouri

 

Dear Mr.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On Friday, December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and began shooting teachers and students before taking his own life. This horrific tragedy took the lives of 27 people, including 20 children seven years of age and younger. As a mother, I'm horrified and stunned by the senseless violence against innocent children and teachers.

This tragedy has led to renewed and important discussions about gun control, which is often a divisive topic in our nation. The loss of so many beautiful children in a mass shooting that involved an assault rifle with ammunition clips that held large numbers of bullets makes clear that we need to revisit the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and review permissible magazine ammunition sizes. I am also supportive of closing the gun show loophole and making sure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns. Finally, it is equally clear that we must reconsider the mental health services available to our citizens, knowing that each mass shooting our nation has experienced involved individuals with substantial mental health problems. "Obamacare" will expand important mental health coverage when it is implemented in 2014. Protecting our children and our citizens will require us to come together to find real solutions that cover a broad range of factors that have contributed to these horrific incidents.

I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri. I believe the horror of the Newtown shootings makes clear that we must get to work protecting our communities and our children from mass slaughter, while also protecting our Second Amendment rights. I am hopeful that the National Rifle Association, a significant voice in this discussion, will be a constructive part of this dialogue.

Even as I welcome this renewed debate, please know that I will continue to protect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to safely own and use appropriate firearms. In the past, I have voted to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms. I also supported an amendment to a spending bill that would prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen. I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states' firearms laws.

As your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation. In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, my prayers are with the students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary, and with their families. All Americans are outraged at senseless and criminal gun violence no matter where they may fall in the debate on guns in American society. A renewed national conversation has begun and we must all be a constructive and open-minded part of it. There is middle ground here, where this nation can come together with sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens, while we continue to respect our Constitution and its Second Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

 

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

Edited by Albe
Link to post
Share on other sites

To Senators Graham and Scott;

 

Dear Sir,

Now that the scope of Diane Feinstein's attack on Gun Rights and the 2nd Amendment is known it is clear that if passed it will be ineffective in dealing with the problems we face as a society. And if this is not reason enough to dismiss it, add to this the more important fact that the rights of millions of law abiding citizens will be infringed upon in the bargain.

Frankly Ms. Feinstein's crusade as put forth is no longer relevant if it ever was to begin with. Gun crime as a whole has dropped significantly in recent years largely due to the fact that there are more trained, armed citizens among us. Ownership of semi automatic rifles has sky rocketed during this same time and yet our streets do not run with blood and the data shows that these weapons account for very small percentage of gun crime overall.

I am certain that part of the strategy of those who would deny us our rights is to overwhelm us with potential laws and regulations knowing there is little chance they all will be adopted. And then, in the interest of compromise they think we will likely accept parts of their plan so in the end there will be a net gain in restrictions or more aptly described, infringements.

I urge you not to play into this tactic. Make no compromises with our freedom.

There are no caveats or footnotes to the Second Amendment. It does not read "Shall Not Be Infringed (for the most part)" or "Shall Not Be Infringed (when at all possible)".

It is sublime in it's simplicity and reads simply;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And these words are as relevant now as they have ever been.

Respectfully,

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All in again, all officials received the following, with modifications as to which office they were in:

 

Dear Senator:

I am writing you today to ask that you oppose any legislation that restricts guns, ammunition, and/or the accessories associated thereto.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (US 2008), the court opined that: “… as we have explained, … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ [citing several cases and treatises]”.

This finding is important. The decision in Heller rests 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 standards of scrutiny that we have applied to the 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,’ [] would fail constitutional muster.

Given this, it is clear that Heller must require that “dangerous and unusual” as a test, requiring both prongs to be assessed, and if either one failed muster, it is protected. Here, Heller only assessed the “unusual” prong.

As we know, the assault rifles are the most favored rifle these days. One need only look at the massive proliferation of them and the amounts of money spent on them in the past decade, as well specifically the last month.

As far as the other prong, however, where does “dangerous” leave us? All firearms are “dangerous” so there must be another analysis. What I argue is that they are not specifically more dangerous than any other firearm. A collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc., do nothing to change lethality of these firearms. That leaves us with magazines and ammunition. The ammunition that they fire is the same as any other rifle, and, in fact, for most of these rifles, the ammunition is close to the lowest possible level you can be, while still being classed as “high power” by the industry. So, the ammunition does not appear to be a problem in its form as dangerous. With regard to the size of magazines, the larger the magazine, the harder it is keep in stock at the dealers. So the larger magazines appear to be the overwhelmingly chosen size. With regard to lethality, the lethality is unchanged for the bullet is the same. With regard to the continued use, such may bring an issue of utility into the issue, but it appears to me that (i) such is not lethality, and (ii) if enacted, it amounts to the government saying “you are responsible for your own self-defense, because the law enforcement officers are not responsible for your individual safety, but we won’t allow you to choose how much you need.” In essence, it is a case of the government becoming culpable for any incident where it could be argued that more bullets in one magazine would have turned the tide for the self-defender. I would further ask, that if it is true that if the law enforcement authority must defend and protect, and they have larger capacity magazines, to argue that an individual does not need that protection is illogical.

Therefore, I urge you to vote against any limitations on our rights as citizens to keep, bear, and transfer, arms. Instead focus on the causative agents, rather than the tools used. Include better criminal checks and mental stability checks. This will go a long way further than banning the tool used, which is really just asking for the criminal to use another tool, so that another taking of rights can be justified.

Also, I urge you to support security in schools. Our children go there, and making them targets for mentally unstable people is just ridiculous, and unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Kelly

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best reply I have gotten yet. It's from the Attorney General of South Carolina and sadly he can't do much on the Federal level but it's still encouraging to know our AG feels this way;

 

 

Dear Mr. Fudd,

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've contacted my representatives and got a response from Liberal Debbie Stabenow that she supports gun ownership. That is of course with all of Obama's and Feinstein's restrictions.....which she does not say. But anyway, I made my voice heard.

 

Keep up the barrage guys, it will be worth the effort in the end. Thanks for your support and efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done.

 

President Barack Obama (D), Vice President Joseph Biden (D), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA), Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), Lt. Gov. William Bolling (R-VA), Sen. Ralph Northam (D-VA), Del. Lynwood Lewis (D-VA), Atty. General Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...