Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by ballr4lyf, Jan 25, 2013.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Got mine today...looks like what I thought was going to be a bright spot for the future is fading fast. Disappointing to hear he has started to back track on a couple of different issues. Just another career politician learning the ropes.
It did sound like it was worded to mean different things to different people. You could "read into" that as open for banning some guns, but not others.......
Double speak?......song and dance?
A real leader will not try to cover all the bases......he'll (she'll) speak true beliefs, and not try to make words have more than one meaning........
Definitely threading the needle on that.
Got this one today from Senator Bob Corker. This is the second one he has sent me in response to my original letter. In this updated letter he is starting to flutter and is not as absolute in his position to defend the 2A.
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary and the issue of gun control. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.
Like any parent, I was heartbroken to hear about this tragedy, and like other Tennesseans, I have the victims and families in my thoughts and prayers. Given such an unspeakable act of violence perpetrated on children, it's appropriate to talk about what we're doing to keep our communities safe, recognizing the issues involved are complex, especially when it comes to identifying and acting upon the warning signs that always seem to precede these incidents.
While I have always believed that it is critical to ensure that firearms are kept out of the hands of those who have lost their constitutional right to firearm possession, the right to own firearms for shooting, hunting, and self-protection is important to me as a Tennessean and as an American. Should legislation dealing with our Second Amendment rights come before the Senate, I will certainly take your concerns into consideration. I also wanted to share the steps I have taken to protect our Second Amendment rights in the attached "Policy Points" document.
Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me.
he can send this same letter to pro and anti gun control people.
This was my letter from Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana (Dem)
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding gun control proposals in response to the recent shooting in Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you.
I was shocked and heartbroken to learn of the horrific shooting that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims of these attacks and their families for their unfathomable loss. As this marks the seventh mass shooting in the United States in 2012 alone, I firmly believe that Congress must take decisive action to prevent such senseless tragedies from happening again.
While I support the possession of legal firearms by responsible law abiding citizens, I am opposed to the availability of military assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, which pose serious threats to public safety and the law enforcement officers who risk their lives protecting us. I believe that there are certain actions we can take to ensure that adequate safety protections exist to reduce the overall level of violence in this country, which in no way means that people shouldn't continue to enjoy their second amendment rights.
That is why, in the 103rd Congress, I supported the assault weapons ban, which prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, including those with a large capacity ammunition feeding device. I deeply regret that President Bush allowed this ban to expire in 2004. Also in the 103rd Congress, I supported passage of the Brady Act, currently known as the national instant criminal background check system, which requires background checks for all firearm transfers and purchases. I would note that the constitutionality of these laws have never been challenged before the Supreme Court.
You may be interested to know that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.R. 138, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would reinstate the ban on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Specifically, the measure would prohibit the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for its lawful possession within the United States on or before the date of this act's enactment, and by law enforcement officers. The measure also would prohibit the importation of such a device, and would require large capacity ammunition feeding devices to be identified by serial numbers.
H.R. 138 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it is currently pending consideration. The measure has 58 cosponsors, and a companion measure has not been introduced in the Senate.
Most recently, on January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a comprehensive proposal to prevent future tragedies in the future. Specifically, the proposal calls on Congress to enact legislation to require criminal background checks for all gun sales, reinstate the assault weapons ban, restore a ten-round limit on ammunition magazines, eliminate armor-piercing bullets, provide mental health services in schools, and allocate funds to hire more police officers.
Because these recommendations require congressional approval, the President supplemented this proposal with 23 separate executive actions which will take effect immediately. These actions include providing law enforcement officials and school officials with better training for active shooting situations, establishing incentives to improve information sharing on background checks, directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, and committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations. I would note that none of these actions restrict an individual's right to bear arms, but instead strengthen existing laws related to mental health, guns, and safety.
As the nation continues to make sense of the tragedy at Sandy Hook, I hope that our country will have a serious and thoughtful discussion to ensure that we find a proper balance between Americans' right to own guns and the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thank you again for contacting me. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Peter J. Visclosky
Member of Congress
My letter back to Visclosky,
Well then Honorable Sir, if you support any restrictive firearm/ammunition legislation by President Obama or Diane Feinstein then as a citizen who has always supported you in the past, it disheartens me to say I can and will no longer support you in the future. As an American I will tell you that any attempt to put limits on or in any way curtail the Second Amendment, which I've had relatives go to war to protect along with the rest of the Bill Of Rights (and not by the way the Bill Of Needs, for the far lefts clarification) are un-American. What I'd really like to hear Pete, is that you have thoroughly looked at both sides of the matter and have decided the anti-gun legislation's being proposed are extreme and will hurt the U.S. Constitution by infringing on our Second Amendment rights and that therefore you will not side with the far left wing and will vote against any such measures.
I really like the hard work you do for us here in NW Indiana Pete, and I hope you won't let us down with this anti-gun legislation which does nothing more than make criminals out of currently law abiding citizens and does nothing about taking the guns away from criminals who are are going to have real assault weapons (which fire fully automatic) no matter what bill gets passed.
Very Respectfully yours Sir,
Rubio has mastered the art of doubletalk. Just ask him about his amnesty proposal and you'll see what I mean, yet ol' Hannity just loves him--like he loved that other "conservative" Giuliani.
Here is a answer from my Congressman George Holder
He seems to have some brains left, Thank God.
Dear Mr. Dukeblue91,
Thank you for contacting me about gun rights. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue and share your concern about preserving the Second Amendment.
In January, President Obama announced a series of new executive actions designed to increase federal regulation of gun ownership. Some of these actions were straightforward, such as naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Some of them seemed almost bizarre in a context of gun rightsespecially his call to expedite implementation of Obamacare. While I am willing to listen to proposals to curb gun violence, I believe it is important for that discussion to proceed in a manner that is respectful of the right-to-bear-arms as defined in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The reality is that there are millions of gun-owners across America that follow the law and it is important to distinguish the rights of law-abiding citizens from the actions of a few deranged individuals. We need a thoughtful discussion about the best ways to protect our citizens, but I am concerned that the President's proposals fail to respect core constitutional principles. Ultimately, any proposal to change federal gun law must pass through the House Committee on the Judiciaryof which I am a member. You can be sure I will fight to protect Second Amendment rights should the Committee consider any new gun-control legislation.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in the 113th Congress. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website. To stay updated on current legislation, please sign up for my e-newsletter.
Member of Congress
I have received two responses from my Democratic Senator so far on gun control. Her first response was very direct about supporting the new AWB, including banning hi-cap mags and whatever. After another letter to her, I received her second response today. In it, she stated that she supports the 2A, supports the Heller decision, and treating the mentally ill under Obamacare. She never mentioned anything about the AWB. I don't know if this is because they have two different responses depending on the viewpoints of the people contacting them or whatever.
Here is the letter I sent her today:
Dear Senator McCaskill,
Thank you for your response to my concerns about pending Gun Control legislation affecting the Second Amendment. I am thankful that we agree on much more than we disagree. I applaud your efforts to look after the mentally ill, and a means of keeping the public safe by limiting their access to guns and weapons. I hope you can produce legislation that accomplishes that, while still protecting the individuals civil liberties. That is to say, a fair process to determine what constitutes mental illness where a person is unfit to purchase or possess firearms.
I am not against universal background checks, per se. I am, however, against the government creating a data base for the registration of all firearms. In the past, the BATFE form 4473 was the system used to trace guns to the original owner. That system was specifically designed so as NOT to create a firearms registry. The NICS was not intended to be used as a registration database, but I fear now that is no longer the case. I believe President Obamas recent executive orders have created a de facto database using the NICS system. The universal background check initiative will require private gun sales to be registered in the NICS database. I can not support any kind of federal firearms registration scheme. Registration is the first step to confiscation. This is not paranoia, but a well proven, historical fact. Although this Congress may sincerely say, We dont want to take your guns, a federal registration system puts in place a means for future government entities to do exactly that. This is unacceptable. I can in no way support a federal registration of any kind, either outright, or a backdoor method by using the NICS system to achieve the same. So please, when discussing the Universal Background Check initiative, please keep this concern in mind.
I am not against laws that protect us from illegal use of firearms. I do hope while you debate these issues, that you keep in mind what any new laws are actually going to prevent. What laws would prevent the mentally unfit from committing similar acts in the future? What new laws would criminals not violate that they violate today? Because, if any new legislation can not effectively and affirmatively answer those two questions, then the effect of these laws would only be to curtail the rights of law abiding citizens. This is what I consider common sense gun laws. It is not common sense to pass laws that will only impact the law abiding. Eighty million lawful gun owners have not, and will not, commit mass murder, regardless of how many bullets their guns hold, or what type of guns they own. Their rights are protected under the Second Amendment, and those rights as stated therein,
shall not be infringed.
I hope you understand that sport shooters, hunters, and people who just want the means to protect themselves and their families, are suspicious of the motives behind this sudden run at Gun Control. It seems that Senator Feinstein had legislation all ready to go, just waiting for the next tragedy to roll it out. Several similar tragedies involving mentally ill mass killings just before the elections were ignored, and now, suddenly, something must be done at all costs, and with as little debate as possible? As much pain and suffering as this incident at Newtown has caused, I encourage you to take the action that you can, to positively change things, but not actions that have been all along part of an anti-gun agenda directed at disarming the law-abiding citizen.
Thank you for your service to this nation, and for representing the people of the great state of Missouri.