That letter is no friend of the responsible firearm owner.
This is a discussion on Feel good letter within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; That letter is no friend of the responsible firearm owner....
That letter is no friend of the responsible firearm owner.
Just wanted to clarify, though OT: There is much more to the exhaust system than just the catalytic converter, and that does not stop you from upgrading to a higher-flow cat (not to mention headers, the rest of the exhaust pipes, and muffler). The only law you could violate (with a higher-flow cat) is emission pollution, but AFAIK that's not even enforced anywhere in GA except for Atlanta, I'm not even sure they have required emission testing. LE, from my experience (at least in GA), doesn't enforce the emission pollution unless there is an associative noise pollution problem (which more people complain about than the smell of no cat).
Back on topic, you are certainly entitled to say what you like to your representative. I don't think you are going to find many people here that agree with how you worded it, however. IMO, we (firearm owners) should be pushing against any kind of more restrictions. Because, if you give them an inch here, and then an inch there, before you know it they've gone a mile and we're left with limiting capacity pistols while criminals are roaming the streets with their 33-rounders.
Like it or not, when you write and present yourself as a firearm owner, people actually associate you as a sort of representative for other firearm owners, so your opinion is weighted in that aspect. ('Well if he would be ok with a ban and he is a firearm owner, other firearm owners might not mind it either')
"Please note that Federal law prohibits removal or replacement of a properly functioning O.E. converter."
This has gotten way of track at this point.
(there was a man in a news article recently that was reported for stalking a waitress, turned out he was just stopping by every day at lunch to illegally use a local business' internet)
Just a point. Back on topic.
I was horrified and brought to tears by the tragedy perpatrated by the mentally unstable assassin in Tucson, AZ. It was a sensless tragedy, the origins of which are deep in the troubled mind of the perpetrator. I have three children, and I still can't imagine the pain felt by Christina Green's parents. How they held it together for their very impressive interviews is beyond me.
This was an atrocity perpatrated by a mental case, a man driven by bizzare internal fantasys. We can dig and get details from the swamp that is his mind, but what he did won't make any more sense then than it does now. Crazy is by definition not rational. This isn't the first one of these events and unfortunately it won't be the last one because there is no practical way to obviate another occurrance in a free society.
Legislation will be proposed, I'm hearing about it already, that will infringe, in some cases drastically, on our first and second amendment rights - it's a slippery slope. The stated reason for for these infringments being to "make sure something like this never happens again". Good luck with that. Clearly we should not allow any infringement of our fundamental rights, how ever small, in persuit of that unattinable goal.
However, there is room for improvement, and maybe some chances to reduce the frequency of occurrance.
With that in mind I have three requests related to this subject:
Thanks for listening.
- Please vote against any infringement, how ever small and innocuous it may seem, on our first and second amendment rights.
- Please "do" work to come up with legislation, consistant with a strict scrutiny view of the first and second amendments, that will get information to the FBI database so that people with a demonstrated history of mental unstability, like was the case for the Tucson, AZ assassin, are barred from buying guns.
- Please work on simple and effective legislation, consistant with the constitution, to provide a structure for management of mental cases like the Tucson assassin. We need a way to get these people on meds, keep them on them. On medication, which they won't always want to take, they are orders of magnitude less likely to become violent.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken
Excellent letter! That's what I am talking about!
I do agree with the OP . We need to voice our support for our 2A rights.
You better believe that the anti gun crowd are letting their voice be heard.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
OP, I do appreciate you taking the time to write your legislator. I agree with much of what you wrote but I have to disagree with banning 33 round magazines, there are millions of them out there that are not used as an accessory for a tool by someone to commit murder. I'm sure dealing with the Nazi Jersey gun laws is rough but here in free America we like the ability to run more that 10 rounds through a pistol without reloading. It may be at the range or it may be in the middle of the night when God only knows how many evildoers are in your home. I wish this nutjob would've decided NOT to attempt to murder his Congresswoman, but he did. I wish he woulda picked a jam-o-matic Taurus or something but he instead chose one of the best 9mm pistols ever and accessorized with an extra hi-capacity magazine. He could've easily just drove a truck into a crowd and possibly done even more damage. One thing is common in all of this, HE did what HE did.
NRA Life Member
With great power comes great responsibility.-Stan Lee
I just don't get it.
Ok then. Say we banned hi-capacity magazines last year. Better yet, let's pretend that they don't exist at all. Would it have prevented the shooting? Nope.
33 rounds of 9mm is evil. What about the 30 round AK magazines that kept people safe during the LA riots?
Good job writing your gov't officials. But, we've all got to get on the same page if we're going to preserve any gun rights.
right to own and carry a gun=the right to live and defend life
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
We can all agree to disagree on the 33 round magazines. Maybe being from NJ I'm biased (we can have 15 round max) or maybe I can not figure out how someone could conceal a G19 (I do have one) with a 33 round magazine. But please do voice an opinion to your legislators (this is the part we can not disagree on), even if you think they have your back they may not. Joker1, watch how you mention the truck thing. Before you know, no vehicles within a 1000 feet of an important politician.
Oh great, now I'm gonna get blamed the next time a pedestrian is hit by a motor vehicle.
I imagine it is pretty difficult to conceal a GLOCK 19 with a 33 round magazine. But that is not the issue, pistols are not just for concealed carry.
NRA Life Member
With great power comes great responsibility.-Stan Lee
I agree with Joe Zamudio when being questioned by "Ed" on the Ed show.
I also agree with Obama, "bad things happen" .
I also think our Congress is "stupid" if they think 1000 ft from a 'Govt official ' will do anything to protect anyone. As Megyn Ryan on Fox News told the Congressman in the interview..... " we have laws against murder to , and obviously that didn't stop him.... why do you think this law would stop anyone from doing what he did ? "
That's a fact. The laws they are discussing, won't do anything to prevent nor improve, nor to reduce crime. They will impact only law-abiding citizens. That's a strong point worth making to our representatives.
"feel good" laws, and those to convince their Anti-gun constituents, aren't really going to acomplish anything .... and most of them know that.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Just like the issue of Bear hunting in Mi.
The bait/stand hunters and the bear hound guys are always at odds and bickering, instead of sticking together and fighting for the sport they both enjoy.
I commend you for your involvment, but we do not need to concede anymore when it comes to what type of firearm the GOVERNMENT will "allow" us to have, or what caliber we are limited to, or mag capacities.
Once we head down that slope, we will soon find ourselves with single shot firearms.
Multiple Choice ;
First Amendment to the Constitution
A) Authorizes Free speech for official State news agencies
B) Protects the Individual’s right to own quill pens and 18th. Century manual printing presses
C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to free speech
Second Amendment to the Constitution
A) Authorizes possession of arms by the Army & National Guard
B) Protects the Individual’s right to own Flintlock muskets & other 18th. Century Arms
C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to keeping and bearing arms
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
Here is what I sent to my 3 today. Obviously I inserted the proper title and name.
Dear INSERT CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR :
I realize that Congress is taking up several gun law changes in the wake of the horrific events in AZ over the weekend. While I am clearly against what the shooter did in AZ, I am also against making gun laws more restrictive. I have several reasons for this stance as follows:
1. As you are aware, the second amendment guarantees US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Further it provides that this right shall not be infringed. This amendment was drafted by the founders to specifically place boundaries on the federal government. If Congress wants to amend the Constitution, have at it, but I suspect that at the ballot box you will not find “we the people” all that receptive.
2. We already have laws in place that address what occurred in AZ over the weekend; criminals just don’t abide by them. The definition of a criminal is one that won’t submit to the rule of law. AZ has laws against murder, the shooter violated this law. AZ has laws against attempted murder, the shooter violated this law as well. There are probably a host of other laws he violated. Why would we think that enacting another law would have precluded him from violating it as well. His gun did not self-deploy and begin a random act of murder, he drew it, aimed it and pulled the trigger. He purposefully targeted Congresswoman Giffords and others. Had he decided to use a car, he could have simply run it through the crowd at 45 mph or so and likely exacted more casualties than he did. Would we be considering banning all cars or cars that could go 45 mph? I doubt it. People would be blaming the driver, not the car in that case – as happened a few years ago in CA.
3. Don’t fall for the trap of resurrecting the assault weapons ban. That law that lasted 10 years was not renewed because it was not effective. The line of those supporting this ban also falls short of rational thought. For this ban to work, criminals must submit to it; as we have seen above, they won’t and they did not the last time we tried it.
4. Peter King’s 1,000 foot perimeter suggestion is totally unworkable. How are regular citizens supposed to keep track of the whereabouts of government officials – and what government officials do we need to track anyway? I could see this applying to every government official from the President to the janitor at the local school. This proposal is not only unworkable, it is clearly unconstitutional. I am glad that Congressman Boehner is eschewing this suggestion out of hand.
In short, we live in a free society. That paradigm has its risks that are far outweighed by its rewards. One of these risks is that people will, from time to time, do bad things. We could change that paradigm to one where we restrict people from exercising freedoms and preclude any illegal actions. This would presuppose a certain prescience that only God has and that the people of the US are not likely to want to try and vest in a governing body – whether they believe in God or not. Given that we have adequate laws on the books already to deal with criminal activity, let’s not restrict law abiding people from enjoying the freedoms that are “unalienable” and come from “our Creator”. If those 2 phrases from our founding documents hold any meaning, and I think that they do, it is not government’s purview to restrict them.
Thanks to all on this board who have contributed thoughts that appear in this letter.
It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.