A letter from my congressman. An interesting read.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,262
Location
Iowa
I received a letter via e-mail the other day, that I though you folks may be interested in.

This was in response to a letter I sent off via Ruger. I've already gotten one back from him and this is the continuation of that one.






Quote:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts concerning gun control. Hearing from concerned Iowans helps me perform my job better.

In the wake of the tragedies that have occurred in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson there has been a debate on how to prevent similar tragedies from occurring. Congress needs to examine the events that have happened and learn how we can prevent such tragedies. It is also important to protect Americans’ constitutional freedoms in the process.

There have been several pieces of legislation introduced in the Senate with the goal of preventing future massacres. While these bills may be well intentioned, I have serious concerns with some of them, especially any legislation that threatens to limit Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

One piece of legislation that was introduced by Senator Schumer is S. 374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013. This legislation would require a universal background check on all gun transactions and requires gun owners to report their weapons stolen or missing within 24 hours. I voted against this bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The first concern I had with this bill, and universal background checks in general, is that there is no way to enforce a universal background check without a national gun registry. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice. He also wrote that straw purchases and theft “would likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.”

I also question the effectiveness of a universal background check. Criminals know they will fail a background check. Increasingly criminals obtain guns through straw purchases and theft. However, this bill would impose unnecessary burdens on private sales between two law-abiding citizens.

The bill restricts law-abiding citizens’ rights. The bill would not allow someone to lend a gun to a family member to hunt with, permit a temporary transfer in the home, or allow a friend to try their gun to see if they like it.

The bill will also render gun safety instruction impossible in many situations. Many gun safety classes take place in a school, office building, sporting goods stores, and other locations. It is only at the end that the class goes to a shooting range for live instruction. So gun safety instructors could not offer the classroom component of the course anywhere except a shooting range or at the instructor’s home.

Requiring people to report lost or stolen guns is a good idea. Many if not most gun owners do so. But making it a federal offense not to take affirmative action troubles me. I have practical and constitutional concerns about creating a new federal felony of this kind.

Another piece of legislation I have voted against is S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would amend the federal criminal code to ban the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of so-called assault weapons. The legislation additionally bans pistols that can accept magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds, pistols that have threaded barrels, and any semiautomatic firearm with a pistol grip, detachable stocks, or folding telescopes.

I have strong concerns with passing legislation that bans guns based on their appearance. For instance, limiting magazine capacity can be circumvented by carrying multiple guns and/or magazines. The 1994 assault weapons ban did not stop Columbine and has been found ineffective by the Department of Justice. Additionally, we continue to wait for the Justice Department’s constitutional analysis of the bill. Despite statements by Department of Justice witnesses at two hearing on gun control, I have yet to see an opinion from the Department arguing that this bill is constitutional.

Our crime reduction efforts must focus on criminals and criminal activity, not on gun control. Those who use a firearm to commit a crime should serve the maximum sentence so they cannot pose a further threat to society. You can be sure that any bill that seeks to restrict or restrain our Second Amendment rights will be given the strictest scrutiny and I will fight to ensure that no new limitations are placed upon our Constitutional rights to bear arms.

I welcome renewed discussion on how to prevent these violent crimes. However, this discussion cannot solely be about guns. The problem is greater than guns alone and we need to focus on the cause of these events rather than the instrument used to carry out such terrible acts. Congress must include a complete reexamination of mental health as it relates to these mass shootings.

Additionally, society has changed. There are too many video games that celebrate mass killing of innocent people. These games find their way into children’s hands. Our society in general has become less civil.

As Congress looks to prevent future tragedies similar to Newtown, I will keep your thoughts in mind on proposed gun control legislation during the 113th Congress. I urge you to continue to raise questions and share your views with me. For democracy to function there has to be two way communication between Americans and their elected representatives. By contacting me, Iowans play a vital role in this process. I am glad to have the benefit of your views. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Chuck
 
Sounds like a good response from your Congressman! Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is not the way to go. And our government, and legislation, needs to be in strict obedience to the Constitution (to the upholding of which all Congressmen and Senators, and civil servant employees, swore an oath).
 
Congress could prevent "further tragedies" by causing to be enforced the firearms laws ALREADY on the books.
 
Last edited:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...r-gun-laws?lite Keep in mind when these politicans react a big part of it is the donations by NRA. has nothing to do with rights which are abused every day big time. 60% is a large portion of the country. Remember this is all fueled by gun sales more sales is the bottom line. the gun rights is the fodder for the donations.* 87% support background checks. It is as always red state vs blue state mentality and both are being lied to.
 
Last edited:
It's only in part a gun sales issue. IIRC, the vast majority of NRA funding comes from the grass roots level. So it's not gun makers filling the coffers of the NRA.

Actually, if you recall what was done to Colt when they went against the NRA position in the 1990's "Assault Weapons Ban" they almost went out of business because gun rights supporters all but stopped buying Colt products.

I'm not saying everything put out by either side is 100% correct. But to say this is fueled by gun sales indicates you don't understand the issue.

It's about the right to buy and own guns.

Apparently 60% of people don't realize that assault weapons are already banned. The average Joe cannot go out and buy a fully automatic assault weapon.

They don't understand that only about 1% (IIRC) of all firearms related deaths are the result of any sort of long gun, let alone, the mythical assault rifle in the hands of your neighbor.

Frankly, I really don't want those who are ignorant about the subject and technology making the policy.

If you are against weapons, don't buy one. But don't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding who do want to purchase weapons of their choice.

If you want to fix the problem, why not go after those who are illegal owners of firearms?

By and large, it's not the membership of the NRA who is doing the killing in a city like Chicago or DC or most any other place where firearms related deaths are high.

So why are the political leaders going after those folks?

Because they either don't or won't understand the problem. They want to feel good about "doing something" regardless if it accomplishes the goal or not.
 
Adam Lanza stole his Mother's guns about 3 minutes before he shot her in the head with them and then proceeded on to the school. Sorry, the 24 hour rule wouldn't have worked. Just sayin...
 
Last edited:
Wayne LaPierre wrote a letter to the NRA membership that a win by the Democrats would be a lost on the political battlefield worst than any other loss on any other battlefield. So the loss in WW2 was less of a loss if Democrats win. This is a very twisted policy and this fuels the mess we are in.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's only in part a gun sales issue. IIRC, the vast majority of NRA funding comes from the grass roots level. So it's not gun makers filling the coffers of the NRA.

Actually, if you recall what was done to Colt when they went against the NRA position in the 1990's "Assault Weapons Ban" they almost went out of business because gun rights supporters all but stopped buying Colt products.

I'm not saying everything put out by either side is 100% correct. But to say this is fueled by gun sales indicates you don't understand the issue.

It's about the right to buy and own guns.

Apparently 60% of people don't realize that assault weapons are already banned. The average Joe cannot go out and buy a fully automatic assault weapon.

They don't understand that only about 1% (IIRC) of all firearms related deaths are the result of any sort of long gun, let alone, the mythical assault rifle in the hands of your neighbor.

Frankly, I really don't want those who are ignorant about the subject and technology making the policy.

If you are against weapons, don't buy one. But don't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding who do want to purchase weapons of their choice.

If you want to fix the problem, why not go after those who are illegal owners of firearms?

By and large, it's not the membership of the NRA who is doing the killing in a city like Chicago or DC or most any other place where firearms related deaths are high.

So why are the political leaders going after those folks?

Because they either don't or won't understand the problem. They want to feel good about "doing something" regardless if it accomplishes the goal or not.
 
Knowing what your congressman is rejecting is great, but I would want to know what he is voting for, or better yet what kind of solutions has he come up with to reduce senseless acts of violence from being perpetrated.
I don't believe in taking away rights and priveledges from law abiding citizens, but there has to be a solution or set of solutions that will better all of our lives as US citizens.
Keep in mind that some of those congressmen that are championing gun rights are the same people that supported the radically intrusive provisions of the Patriot Act.
 
The loss of freedom is a catastrophic loss. We fought WW2 because a few leaders wanted to rule the world, taking away the freedoms of those ruled.

I can see his point. If you believe the gun laws are a move to eliminate freedoms, then yes, electing those who would further infringe upon your freedoms is logically no different than the dictator who seeks the same through force.

As he said, it was a different battlefield. But the target of the attack is the same, individual freedom.

You may not believe what he says. But it doesn't make him insane to stand up and defend freedom when he perceives it's being attacked.

I don't believe the problem is with the NRA or it's past or present leadership. The problem is that folks in DC simply want to look like they are "doing something" rather than actually solving the problem.

Since guns don't vote, they are the target in the political game. That's why politicians don't go after criminals. Too many potential votes in that target.

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Wayne LaPierre wrote a letter to the NRA membership that a win by the Democrats would be a lost on the political battlefield worst than any other loss on any other battlefield. So the loss in WW2 was less of a loss if Democrats win. This is a very twisted policy and this fuels the mess we are in.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's only in part a gun sales issue. IIRC, the vast majority of NRA funding comes from the grass roots level. So it's not gun makers filling the coffers of the NRA.

Actually, if you recall what was done to Colt when they went against the NRA position in the 1990's "Assault Weapons Ban" they almost went out of business because gun rights supporters all but stopped buying Colt products.

I'm not saying everything put out by either side is 100% correct. But to say this is fueled by gun sales indicates you don't understand the issue.

It's about the right to buy and own guns.

Apparently 60% of people don't realize that assault weapons are already banned. The average Joe cannot go out and buy a fully automatic assault weapon.

They don't understand that only about 1% (IIRC) of all firearms related deaths are the result of any sort of long gun, let alone, the mythical assault rifle in the hands of your neighbor.

Frankly, I really don't want those who are ignorant about the subject and technology making the policy.

If you are against weapons, don't buy one. But don't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding who do want to purchase weapons of their choice.

If you want to fix the problem, why not go after those who are illegal owners of firearms?

By and large, it's not the membership of the NRA who is doing the killing in a city like Chicago or DC or most any other place where firearms related deaths are high.

So why are the political leaders going after those folks?

Because they either don't or won't understand the problem. They want to feel good about "doing something" regardless if it accomplishes the goal or not.
 
Chuck Schumer is my Senator and he is a total POS.....The guy has never had a job outside of politics.
'Professional' politicians were not what the Founding fathers had in mind.....
 
Chuck Schumer is my Senator and he is a total POS.....The guy has never had a job outside of politics.
'Professional' politicians were not what the Founding fathers had in mind.....
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Apparently 60% of people don't realize that assault weapons are already banned. The average Joe cannot go out and buy a fully automatic assault weapon.


Nice to point that out! These so called Assault weapons they are referring to are all show and no go.
Strip of the plastic doodads and its nothing more than a run of the mill semi auto rifle.
As you point out true "assault" weapons are already banned for the general public.

I showed my brothers wife pictures of an Bushmaster AR15 and a BAR 1918A2 sans bipod and she instantly decided the AR15 is much deadlier and should be banned. LOL
When i pointed out that although you wouldnt want to be on the business end of either one the AR was a peashooter in comparison to the BAR and the BAR was one of the most powerful and deadly assault rifles ever made, she didn't know what to say.
 
I got what you say but if you lost a brother in Iraq would you agree that is was less of a loss than losing to Democrats??? So a loss in Iraq would be not as worse and you :(can see his point?Me too he is a self serving politican lobbyist.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The loss of freedom is a catastrophic loss. We fought WW2 because a few leaders wanted to rule the world, taking away the freedoms of those ruled.

I can see his point. If you believe the gun laws are a move to eliminate freedoms, then yes, electing those who would further infringe upon your freedoms is logically no different than the dictator who seeks the same through force.

As he said, it was a different battlefield. But the target of the attack is the same, individual freedom.

You may not believe what he says. But it doesn't make him insane to stand up and defend freedom when he perceives it's being attacked.

I don't believe the problem is with the NRA or it's past or present leadership. The problem is that folks in DC simply want to look like they are "doing something" rather than actually solving the problem.

Since guns don't vote, they are the target in the political game. That's why politicians don't go after criminals. Too many potential votes in that target.

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Wayne LaPierre wrote a letter to the NRA membership that a win by the Democrats would be a lost on the political battlefield worst than any other loss on any other battlefield. So the loss in WW2 was less of a loss if Democrats win. This is a very twisted policy and this fuels the mess we are in.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's only in part a gun sales issue. IIRC, the vast majority of NRA funding comes from the grass roots level. So it's not gun makers filling the coffers of the NRA.

Actually, if you recall what was done to Colt when they went against the NRA position in the 1990's "Assault Weapons Ban" they almost went out of business because gun rights supporters all but stopped buying Colt products.

I'm not saying everything put out by either side is 100% correct. But to say this is fueled by gun sales indicates you don't understand the issue.

It's about the right to buy and own guns.

Apparently 60% of people don't realize that assault weapons are already banned. The average Joe cannot go out and buy a fully automatic assault weapon.

They don't understand that only about 1% (IIRC) of all firearms related deaths are the result of any sort of long gun, let alone, the mythical assault rifle in the hands of your neighbor.

Frankly, I really don't want those who are ignorant about the subject and technology making the policy.

If you are against weapons, don't buy one. But don't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding who do want to purchase weapons of their choice.

If you want to fix the problem, why not go after those who are illegal owners of firearms?

By and large, it's not the membership of the NRA who is doing the killing in a city like Chicago or DC or most any other place where firearms related deaths are high.

So why are the political leaders going after those folks?

Because they either don't or won't understand the problem. They want to feel good about "doing something" regardless if it accomplishes the goal or not.
 
Last edited:
If we lose individual freedoms, the losses already paid in blood and lives were in vain.

I would never say one person's loss is greater than another. But it is possible that one loss makes previous losses pointless.

So if my brother/father/grandfather died defending freedom, only to have it taken away at the stroke of a pen by some well meaning guys and gals in DC trying to "do something" I think I would be deeply upset at how their sacrifice was squandered by the ignorant.
 
I've never seen a BAR in action but remember the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and the movie "Public Enemy" (with Johnny Depp). Both show gun action with the BAR and I am in awe at the power of this weapon. If I had a bucket list, firing off a few rounds from this weapon would be on my list.

As a side note, it always amazes me that people focus on "assult" weapons and not a simple gun like a shotgun. I've got an old 12 guage that my Dad gave me. In my opinion, at close range, (like a crowded room), that is a much more deadly weapon than any assult weapon. Not saying it should be banned, just saying no one ever talks about these kinds of guns.
 
Never got to fire a BAR, but I carried an M60 as a cadet since I was one of the biggest guys in our squad. Got to fire a "Ma Duece" as part of the cadet training. Even got to fire a few rounds from a 155mm howitzer.

On the rifle range, I better hit you at 150-300 meters because I was a better shot at distance than the 50 and 100 meter targets
smile.gif


The BN S2 had a .45 "Race Gun" we took to the pistol range to practice with side arms.

Then there was our college rifle team that was really a drinking team with a shooting habit
smile.gif
 
Sounds like your Senator gets it. Thank him for all of us.

One of mine gets it. The other I'm not so sure about it, but his reelection is coming up, and he would most assuredly be looking for a real job if he were to support any of the half baked gun control initiatives that are now out there.

He does get that much, at least.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
.... I got what you say but if you lost a brother in Iraq would you agree that is was less of a loss than losing to Democrats???


What does this have to do with your persistent agenda to take away the rights of law abiding persons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top