response from one of my senators

response from one of my senators

This is a discussion on response from one of my senators within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This is the response I got from one of my senators from Georgia. I don't see him allowing for much wiggle room, but others might ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree14Likes
  • 2 Post By Dennis1209
  • 3 Post By Gene83
  • 3 Post By nathanjns
  • 3 Post By johnbergsing
  • 1 Post By Eighthtee
  • 1 Post By StevePVB
  • 1 Post By SmokinFool

Thread: response from one of my senators

  1. #1
    Member Array vilecanards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    atlanta,ga
    Posts
    69

    response from one of my senators

    This is the response I got from one of my senators from Georgia. I don't see him allowing for much wiggle room, but others might see it differently.

    Dear Mr. xxxxx:



    Thank you for contacting my office regarding our Second Amendment rights. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and am grateful for the opportunity to respond to you.



    I support the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families. I firmly believe that we do not need more gun control in America; rather we need more criminal control. To that end, I support instant background checks on the commercial purchase of all guns to prevent convicted felons from obtaining them, but I do not support waiting periods or the registration of any firearm. As many of these issues reemerge in the 113th Congress, I will work for common-sense legislation that keeps our children safe without infringing upon our Second Amendment rights.



    Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.


    Sincerely,
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array Dennis1209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NW, TN
    Posts
    744
    I get basically the same form letters from my Congressman and Senators.

    When they give just a little bit and pass a seemingly comprimise bill, then the next one comes and gets passed, just a little more infringement occurs to your Constitutional rights.

    We're constantly under attack so there should be zero comprimise, period.
    airslot and oakchas like this.
    I think, therefore I am...

    <the Menace>

  3. #3
    Member Array krisspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    OH / No KY
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by vilecanards View Post
    This is the response I got from one of my senators from Georgia. I don't see him allowing for much wiggle room, but others might see it differently.

    Dear Mr. xxxxx:



    Thank you for contacting my office regarding our Second Amendment rights. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and am grateful for the opportunity to respond to you.



    I support the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families. I firmly believe that we do not need more gun control in America; rather we need more criminal control. To that end, I support instant background checks on the commercial purchase of all guns to prevent convicted felons from obtaining them, but I do not support waiting periods or the registration of any firearm. As many of these issues reemerge in the 113th Congress, I will work for common-sense legislation that keeps our children safe without infringing upon our Second Amendment rights.



    Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.


    Sincerely,
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator
    Isn't he saying that he supports the current NICS system? There's no mention of private sales here. I don't see any infringement. It sounds to me like Senator Isakson is one of the good ones.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    My only objection is his use of the catch phrase "common sense legislation". Legislators with common sense are a rare breed in Washington.
    oakchas, Ghost1958 and Sig 210 like this.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    528
    He says he doesn't believe we need more gun control but that he will work for common sense legislation that keeps our children safe without infringing on our Second Amendment rights. Based on that, I am not sure what he means or what he will support. Sounds pretty much like what we hear from anti-gun libs. He doesn't address any specific legislation that he will or will not vote for. No disrespect intended to the OP, but that kind of vague non answer makes me uneasy.
    Last edited by nathanjns; April 3rd, 2013 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Spelling
    SmokinFool, oakchas and Ghost1958 like this.

  6. #6
    Member Array johnbergsing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    185
    When you hear phrases like "common-sense legislation", head's up! That's code for "I'm willing to compromise"! Fortunately our Alabama Senators have both plainly stated they will vote NO on any gun legislation. I just wish more states' Senators voted the same.
    NRA MEMBER
    EDC: Beretta Nano

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array First Sgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florence, SC
    Posts
    7,969
    "background checks to prevent felons from obtaining them (guns)"....Now I ask this question, who in their right mind actually believes a felon will give information for a background check? Just wondering here....
    Sometimes in life you have to stand your ground. It's a hard lesson to learn and even most adults don't get it, but in the end only I can be responsible for my life. If faced with any type of adversity, only I can overcome it. Waiting for someone else to take responsibility is a long fruitless wait.

  8. #8
    Member Array Eighthtee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    16
    If you think about it "common sense" in this case would be less guns equals less gun related crime. BUT we know that in fact it is not common sense. Its backwards. More guns equals less gun related crime. So when a politician says he favors "common sense" gun legislation what he is really saying is "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". He will be legislating with emotion rather than facts. And that is where the problem lies. its not common sense. We need our politicians to look at the facts, (which do not support gun control), rather than common sense.

    Eigthtee
    vilecanards likes this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by First Sgt View Post
    "background checks to prevent felons from obtaining them (guns)"....Now I ask this question, who in their right mind actually believes a felon will give information for a background check? Just wondering here....
    If I'm not mistaken we've had about 8,000 background failures by felons. Prosecutions? 66.
    SmokinFool likes this.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePVB View Post
    If I'm not mistaken we've had about 8,000 background failures by felons. Prosecutions? 66.
    I always thought it was very telling that the antis want to keep making more and more laws restricting lawful gun ownership, but they refuse to prosectute those that they have found breaking the law. This of course means that only law abiding citizens will be affected by these laws, and the criminals will continue to do what criminals do, and the antis know it. I'll leave it to all of you to decide why they would push for laws that would only affect law abiding citizens while not doing a dang-blasted thing about actual criminal use of firearms.
    nathanjns likes this.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    I always thought it was very telling that the antis want to keep making more and more laws restricting lawful gun ownership, but they refuse to prosectute those that they have found breaking the law. This of course means that only law abiding citizens will be affected by these laws, and the criminals will continue to do what criminals do, and the antis know it. I'll leave it to all of you to decide why they would push for laws that would only affect law abiding citizens while not doing a dang-blasted thing about actual criminal use of firearms.
    That is because they are ALL SHOW and NO GO. They want to talk a problem into submission but get their tightey whiteys in a wad if any unpleasant action is required. One of the things they find so objectionable about US is that we understand that someone has to get their hands dirty sometime. That makes US part of the "Great Unwashed"; thus of lesser worth than THEM. In short, they are foolish snobs who think this would be a cotton candy world if the rest of us would only listen to them.

  12. #12
    Member Array awoodpd13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    66
    My wife and I wrote postal letters to Senators Isakson and Chambliss, and to Congressman Broun on Jan. 16, 2013. We received paper replies from Chambliss and Broun; I have previously posted Broun's reply here:

    Reply From Congressman Paul Broun (R/GA/10) .

    As of Feb. 28, 2013, we had not heard from Isakson, so I e-mailed him at senator@isakson.senate.gov. He replied:

    Dear Mr. Wood:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding a proposed ban on assault weapons. I apologize for the delay in responding. My office has experienced a significant increase in the volume of incoming mail, but please know your concerns were taken into consideration at the time your letter was first received. I appreciate your thoughts, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond.

    Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004, has introduced a new bill to ban assault weapons. This legislation would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. Sen. Feinstein's bill also would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

    I do not believe that bans on assault weapons or cartridges are the answer to ending acts of mass violence, nor will such measures pass Congress. As history shows us, the 10-year ban on assault weapons that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 could not prevent the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The common threads running through these shootings are mental health issues. I believe that more effective and sensible solutions are those that focus on background checks and mental health care, rather than restrictions on our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I look forward to working for commonsense solutions that keep our children safe without infringing upon our Constitutional rights.

    Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

    Sincerely,
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator

    For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm. You can also click here to sign up for the eNewsletter

    Our original letter did not address "Universal Background Checks", and Isakson does not bring up the topic in his e-mail. He also avoided addressing the possibility of Filibustering any anti-2A legislation under Senate consideration, a topic we had inquired about in our letter. I would prefer Rand Paul and Ted Cruz as my Senators...
    LEOSA Qualified: Semi-auto and revolver.

Sponsored 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

leosa requals in georgia

Click on a term to search for related topics.