"Did you contact your Reps today?" Roll Call

[Remek 771]

Just finished with the federal representatives. Short and sweet today:

 

Dear [official]

Its the weekend, so I wont pontificate too much.

Please oppose any gun and/or gun-related restrictions, we have the right laws already. Instead focus on mental health checks, enforcement of existing laws, and security in our schools.

Please also be vocal about, and oppose, any UN arms treaty ratification.

Sincerely,

[Me]

[RED333 1,025]

Sent 3 so far today, 1 on firearms, 1 on tanks and planes to the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt and 1 in Mediecare reform.

[Remek 771]

Finished State officials:

 

Dear Senator and Delegate:

Please oppose any legislation restricting lawful citizens rights under the second amendment. Please also support the bill to oppose enforcement of federal laws restricting the second amendment in Virginia. I also suggest you focus new legislation on identifying criminals and mentally ill people, and restricting their access to firearms.

 

Thank you for your time.

Robert M. Kelly

[Remek 771]

Sheriff done:

 

 

 

Dear Sheriff [xxx]:

 

I am writing to inquire your views as to enforcement of possible gun restrictions being made on the federal level. Would you please let me know your views?

 

Best Wishes,

[xxx]

[Squishy 1,149]

I made this, use it as you will.

 

 

I didn't make this...

 

Edited January 27, 2013 by Squishy

[Squishy 1,149]

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 country.

But unlike other groups we do not seek to take from anyone and do not want something for nothing. We do not want more government in our lives we want less.

And we simply want to be able to realize the most basic promise of this, the greatest country (for the time being) on earth and that is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It is not about hunting, it is not about shooting "skeet", it is about nothing less than the right to protect our families and feel as safe as we can in this ever deteriorating society.

We know that those who would seek to infringe on our rights will take what they can today and then come back for more tomorrow and the next day, and the next day and so on. And while they speak of "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions I would submit to you that common sense and reason were exercised 237 years ago when our Constitution was adopted. This document is timeless and is in no need of adjustment or updating.

I urge you to stand fast and reject any legislation that would threaten our most basic rights in any way.

Respectfully,

[patriot 7,197]

Very nice, Squish. Polite, blunt, and to the point. Much better than the "Hey Fuckstick" I proposed earlier!

[Squishy 1,149]

Well it's usually true that most of us can hear better when we're not on the defensive or feeling insulted but IMO you should say what's on your mind first and foremost.

[unclejake 428]

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 country.

 

But unlike other groups we do not seek to take from anyone and do not want something for nothing. We do not want more government in our lives we want less.

 

And we simply want to be able to realize the most basic promise of this, the greatest country (for the time being) on earth and that is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

It is not about hunting, it is not about shooting "skeet", it is about nothing less than the right to protect our families and feel as safe as we can in this ever deteriorating society.

 

We know that those who would seek to infringe on our rights will take what they can today and then come back for more tomorrow and the next day, and the next day and so on. And while they speak of "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions I would submit to you that common sense and reason were exercised 237 years ago when our Constitution was adopted. This document is timeless and is in no need of adjustment or updating.

 

I urge you to stand fast and reject any legislation that would threaten our most basic rights in any way.

 

Respectfully,

Well said, sir, well said!

[RED333 1,025]

5 today so far

this is one I wrote

 

President Obama said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more/

The 2nd is not ABOUT HUNTING, it is about defending yourself from people and others that want to do you harm and not "if" but WHEN more than 3 or 4 bad guys come at you, you WILL need more than 10 rounds, maybe 20 or more.
Bad guys dont come alone as they are COWARDS!!!
The 2nd "Shall not be INFRINGED"
There are laws on the books, that you dont have time to enforce, you VP Biden said that.
Work to enforce those.

President Obama, we do listen, we listen VERY WELL and we know the left want to take all our firearms, they will use any means at their hands to do so.

The members of Congress do as "WE the PEOPLE"
want, not what the President wants.

[Remek 771]

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 country.

 

But unlike other groups we do not seek to take from anyone and do not want something for nothing. We do not want more government in our lives we want less.

 

And we simply want to be able to realize the most basic promise of this, the greatest country (for the time being) on earth and that is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

It is not about hunting, it is not about shooting "skeet", it is about nothing less than the right to protect our families and feel as safe as we can in this ever deteriorating society.

 

We know that those who would seek to infringe on our rights will take what they can today and then come back for more tomorrow and the next day, and the next day and so on. And while they speak of "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions I would submit to you that common sense and reason were exercised 237 years ago when our Constitution was adopted. This document is timeless and is in no need of adjustment or updating.

 

I urge you to stand fast and reject any legislation that would threaten our most basic rights in any way.

 

Respectfully,

 

Thanks Squishy! As usual, excellent writing, and it saved me time today, which I sorely need to do!

 

All elected officials contacted today!

[Ender 12]

This is my letter of the day. I wonder if I will get a meaningful response?

 

Good day-

 

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The specific firearms are described as a “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO.” Additionally, they are asking for 30 round magazines for these firearms.

 

Could you please explain the hypocrisy of a firearm labeled in the current gun control debate as “unacceptable for personal defense” being requested by a government agency on the grounds that it is good for personal defense? The same question applies to the 30 round magazines.

 

Regards,

XXXXXXXXX

[RED333 1,025]

Just sent both, thanks guys.

[Squishy 1,149]

"This is my letter of the day. I wonder if I will get a meaningful response?"

 

Sadly I doubt it but it's a very good question. There are many other questions I'd like to have answered like "How does a barrel shroud or a pistol grip make a weapon more lethal?" or "Why is Feinstein seeking to ban weapons that account for such a small percentage of gun crime?"

 

I hope some of the inconvenient questions are asked when/if there are hearings about the gun grab.

[gunman1 1,753]

And again today,

 

Your message for "Gun Owner: Call to Action" was sent on 01/27/2013 19:19 PM to the following recipients: 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)

[RED333 1,025]

Just sent this

 

Mr President, if you want compromise in gun
control you should lead, not demand, repeal all
gun laws, and start over.
Lets start with the 2nd Amendment.

"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."

 

There you go, nothing more needed, the Founding
Fathers were very smart men, a lot smarter than
you or I, as they new what the future would hold
for this great country.
Over the years laws have been passed that
infringe on the 2nd that are unconstitutional.
NOW THAT IS COMPROMISING.

[gunman1 1,753]

"This is my letter of the day. I wonder if I will get a meaningful response?"

 

Sadly I doubt it but it's a very good question. There are many other questions I'd like to have answered like "How does a barrel shroud or a pistol grip make a weapon more lethal?" or "Why is Feinstein seeking to ban weapons that account for such a small percentage of gun crime?"

 

I hope some of the inconvenient questions are asked when/if there are hearings about the gun grab.

 

Hearings about some unconstitutional shit? No no....her bill needs to be placed in deep dark hole when it arrives in the House, never to be heard of again. They fucked us with their healthcare bullshit, now it's our turn, no hearings, no nothing....

[Squishy 1,149]

I don't remember where I saw it, I read so much these days about all this but I thought I saw something that indicated there were going to be hearings but I couldn't begin to remember where it was. Of course it would be best if it didn't get that far.

[Remek 771]

I pass this along second hand, and maybe it has little meaning, but a buddy of mine was chatting with Congressman Cantor, and he said there is no way ANY gun control legislation is going to pass.

 

Now, I wouldnt usually pass something like this along, but Cantor saying it provides at least some comfort for me.

[Squishy 1,149]

I hope it turns out to be true as we all do. Frankly I feel like this it the only thing that matters. Mods, ammo, this, that, all the little things that make being an enthusiast enjoyable hold no interest. It's like none of it matters with this hanging over my/our heads. I know I should just let it go and accept that I have little control over it all and go on but I can't, it's just how I am.

 

Many things seem insignificant when you're waiting to go to DEFCON 1.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Squishy

[Remek 771]

We are in the same boat. I have been sitting at my desk for weeks now and really cannot get a thing done. Luckily, i work way ahead of scedule, so the effects have beffered some, but its starting to hurt me this past week. I am planning to burn vacation time to make up for it, but i only have so much.

[Remek 771]

Wrote Everyone again. Here is the text of my letter to the federal legislators.

 

 

I am writing today to urge you to oppose all legislation infringing on/restricting firearms, ammunition, and accessories thereto.

As we already know, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (US. 2008), has already affirmed the right to keep and bare arms extends to cover self-defense. In their opinion they decided that under self-defense, guns were protected by the second amendment, if they pass a test of "dangerous and unusual". The court's decision rested upon a single prong of this test: unusual. They found that the firearm was in common use at the time, and a preferred weapon of choice for self defense. As such, they decided that handguns were protected by the second amendment. It is similarly true that those weapons termed "assault weapons" by those who wish to ban them, are the single most commonly purchased self-defense weapon today, and make up the vast majority of self-defense rifles in the population in general. Indeed, even the Dept. of Homeland Security has recognized their particular suitability to self-defense in their request for select-fire versions of these same rifles. What more testament do we need of the fact that these weapons are all protected under the second amendment of the bill of rights?

Please, instead of focusing on the protected arms of the population, instead focus on finding and treating the mentally-ill and criminal element of the population. Please also focus on providing security at our public education facilities throughout the united states. These would be much more productive than any ban on tools.

[RED333 1,025]

Sent 6 today, thanks guys and gals.

[Ronin38 2,117]

After getting several robot responses from Sen. Brown, I received this reply today that actually sounds like he DID write it! (AND read what I sent him as well.)

-----------------------------------------------------

Thank you for expressing your views on the Assault Weapons Ban.

From 1994 to 2004, Congress enacted a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill had three main components. The first section was comprised of a list guns that were banned by name, such as Uzi’s. The second section outlawed the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features. The third section was an appendix which listed hunting rifles and shotguns that didn’t run afoul of the second section, and thus were exempted from the bill.

In 2011, law enforcement leaders such as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Back, Oklahoma Police Chief Bill Citty, and Brockton, Massachusetts, Police Captain Emanuel Gomes, all separately discussed how their officers were being outgunned with assault weapons possessed by criminals.

While I have supported restrictions on the possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and restrictions on the ability of criminals to possess handguns, I do not support an outright ban on guns or arbitrary restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to possess guns.

When our children and families are no longer safe at our schools, in our malls, and in our movie theaters, then we as a country must take action. The shocking numbers of public shootings throughout the country last year, culminating in Newtown, Connecticut, demand that we engage in a serious national discussion about gun violence, not just in terms of weapons and bullets, but also including mental health access, public safety officers, and our responsibility both as individuals and a society.

This is a complex issue and we must work together to uphold our Constitution while at the same time ensuring that our communities are safe. We can and must act to make such tragedies less likely in the future. Should any legislation concerning a reintroduction of the Assault Weapons Ban come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

[RED333 1,025]

After getting several robot responses from Sen. Brown, I received this reply today that actually sounds like he DID write it! (AND read what I sent him as well.)

-----------------------------------------------------

Thank you for expressing your views on the Assault Weapons Ban.

From 1994 to 2004, Congress enacted a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill had three main components. The first section was comprised of a list guns that were banned by name, such as Uzi’s. The second section outlawed the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features. The third section was an appendix which listed hunting rifles and shotguns that didn’t run afoul of the second section, and thus were exempted from the bill.

In 2011, law enforcement leaders such as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Back, Oklahoma Police Chief Bill Citty, and Brockton, Massachusetts, Police Captain Emanuel Gomes, all separately discussed how their officers were being outgunned with assault weapons possessed by criminals.

While I have supported restrictions on the possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and restrictions on the ability of criminals to possess handguns, I do not support an outright ban on guns or arbitrary restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to possess guns.

When our children and families are no longer safe at our schools, in our malls, and in our movie theaters, then we as a country must take action. The shocking numbers of public shootings throughout the country last year, culminating in Newtown, Connecticut, demand that we engage in a serious national discussion about gun violence, not just in terms of weapons and bullets, but also including mental health access, public safety officers, and our responsibility both as individuals and a society.

This is a complex issue and we must work together to uphold our Constitution while at the same time ensuring that our communities are safe. We can and must act to make such tragedies less likely in the future. Should any legislation concerning a reintroduction of the Assault Weapons Ban come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

VOTE HIS ASS OUT!!!

[Ronin38 2,117]

Oh, believe me, I have NEVER ONCE voted for this moron!

 

I'm also not going to stop bugging him about it.

[RED333 1,025]

Oh, believe me, I have NEVER ONCE voted for this moron!

 

I'm also not going to stop bugging him about it.

GET HIM.

[SgtRaven 531]

Thank you, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)!

 

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Sgt. Raven

[Squishy 1,149]

There's been some comment (not a lot) about whether or not writing letters, sending emails is effective. And I'm sure there are many more opinions than have been expressed but tongues have been held so as to not pee in anyone's corn flakes. And this is a good thing.

 

When I send an email I don't realistically think I'm going to flat out change anyone's mind. I don't think they'll read my mail and go "You know, that guy is right, I'm going to change my vote". Not gonna happen.

 

But as with any issue that factors in public opinion, the numbers do matter. If it's no more than "for" or "against" tallies. It lets them know that we are watching and that there will be consequences to one extent or another as a result of what they do.

 

I want them to look out of their ivory towers and see this;

 

 

...and know that we stand ready to defend what we hold dear.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Squishy

[Remek 771]

Thanks for articulating, Squishy!

 

Wrote everyone again today. Here is the letter I sent to my state legislators:

 

Dear Sirs:

 

I am asking you to oppose any restrictions on firearms and/or their accessories. It is non-productive, and simply a gun-grab. Instead, focus on putting security into our schools, and anonymous NICS checks that are internet based.

 

The reason people are against NICS checks is it amounts to a registry, because the governement would know where all the guns went. I propose we take that away, and make it anonymous, not listing the gun, and have all records of the transaction removed from the computers after having passed, if it passes. Report only those that are not passed. A receipt for the person selling would be good to prove it was checked. Other than that, I would not approve of mandatory checks for all firearm transactions. I also want family and friends exempted from checks, but held liable for people who give knowing to mentally-ill or criminals.

 

Sincerely,

ME