Feel good letter - Page 2

Feel good letter

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....

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Feel good letter

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    That letter is no friend of the responsible firearm owner.


  2. #17
    Member Array NIS350ZTT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    244
    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')
    Last edited by NIS350ZTT; January 13th, 2011 at 05:32 PM. Reason: Added some more on-topic points.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by NIS350ZTT View Post
    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).
    http://www.catalyticconverter.org/law/index.htm

    "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.

  4. #19
    Member Array NIS350ZTT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    http://www.catalyticconverter.org/law/index.htm

    "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.
    Be that as it may, from my experience that is very rarely enforced or prosecuted. Similar to the 'theft of service' law applying to illegally using someone else's (secured or unsecured) wireless internet without permission. While it is against the law, it's very rarely enforced or prosecuted.

    (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.

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,819

    e-mail to my senators and congress men sent this afternoon.

    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:
    1. Please vote against any infringement, how ever small and innocuous it may seem, on our first and second amendment rights.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    Thanks for listening.

    Fitch
    “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

  6. #21
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Excellent letter! That's what I am talking about!

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,454
    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!
    -Tony Soprano

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array joker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by John Luttrel View Post
    I kept it simple in the letter I sent to my Law Makers.................

    Dear Sir, in light of the horrible murderous act committed in Arizona, by an obviously mentally ill person, I am very worried there will be knee jerk reactions by law makers, that while possibly done with good intentions, will infringe on the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of honest law abiding citizens of this country.

    The 1st amendment guarantees us the right to free speech, which gives us the right to peaceably have public discourse and debate, while the 2nd amendment guarantees us the right to own and bear arms; they are not only tradition in our country, but rights that many Americans have fought and died for. I'm sure many will petition to disarm honest citizens and silence the political voices of America based on fears it may trigger the lunatic fringe, but it's unconstitutional to infringe on the rights of citizens because of the irrational actions of a few.

    I understand the hurt and pain inflicted by the shooter, but to blame this on anything or anyone other than the shooter is utterly and completely absurd and anyone implying otherwise is surly doing so with an agenda. What I am asking of you Sir, is to defend our Constitution and the rights it guarantees us citizens, from those that will use this tragic event as an excuse to deprive us of them.

    My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families; this was truly a sad day for our nation. Vr...

    MSgt John Luttrell USAF Retired
    Both good letters, but this one is definately better.

    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

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,752
    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

    the end
    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

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    790
    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.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array joker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,097
    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

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    My suggestion is to send a letter only stating what you feel is appropriate. If we all do / say nothing, then we can not complain about what may happen.

    In my case, it probably doesn't matter what I say as my senetor believes no-one should be allowed to have / own a gun.
    This will come across to them as further proof that "Reasonable Restrictions" are what we want. Terms they love to throw around when taking your rights away.

    Michael

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    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."

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,344
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Yet some people personally don't see a need for you to own a handgun.... does that mean that they should be taken from everyone?

    I have pointed this out to many a firearm owner willing to bend over and compromise on something that should not be compromised on... it makes me sad to think even people who exercise their rights to keep and bear arms feel the need to restrict them just because THEY don't use something or feel the need to own one.

    One day someone is going to not feel the need for something you own and try to take it from you, then see how you feel about the whole restriction thing.

    ^^^^^^^^^^YEP^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



    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.

    rmilchman<
    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

  15. #30
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    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.

    Sincerely,



    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. A letter on how most of us feel about our Govt.
    By JAT40 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 17th, 2009, 05:24 PM
  2. And for our feel good story of the week...
    By packinnova in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 20th, 2008, 03:56 PM

Search tags for this page

feel good letters

,
feel well letters
,
ways around lautenberg act
,
what is a feel good letter?
Click on a term to search for related topics.