A reply from my congressional rep.

[rottkeeper]

So he basically states that:

1. He recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.
2. Yet goes on to state that your input would help him balance the two objectives.

The second objective is in direct conflict with the first. Hence his presumed feeling to need to balance the two. Yet, you cannot balance both objectives if you recognize that ONE of the two is INALIENABLE.

In short, he's either an idiot, or he thinks you are. It's one or the other. I would respond in kind and call him out. Ask him specifically to respond to the direct question of: What is the definition of INALIENABLE?

See if he responds. If nothing else you'll have another funny form letter to post.

I intend to call him out but need to think about the best way as to not sound offensive and still get my point across in no uncertain terms. Perhaps some suggestions form the crew here would help. I'm open and listening.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Divebum47]

The first is the Constitution, which I swore to uphold, in which the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. This right is inalienable. The second is my duty to protect the citizens of this country and provide sensible rules that ensure safety.

If he upholds the Constitution, his "duty" is moot.