A reply from my congressional rep.

[rottkeeper]

After writing a letter to Congressional Rep Paul Tonko about a month ago I received this reply. See if you see it as I do, a pile of BS.

April 2, 2009

Mr. Robert Belanger


Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting my office in regards to gun ownership. Your correspondence is highly valuable and I appreciate your sentiments.

As you know, the 21st Congressional District of New York, which I represent in the halls of Congress, has both densely populated urban areas as well as sparsely populated rural areas, with suburban homes in between. As I manage the diversity of opinions and views regarding gun ownership, there are two important factors I will always keep in mind. 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. Your opinions and insight help me to better balance these two objectives.


Again, thank you for your opinion and correspondence. I am most appreciative. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My door is always open.



Very Truly Yours,

Paul D. Tonko

MEMBER OF CONGRESS



PDT/bc

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rock and Glock]

Yep. Look at his NRA Grade too. Might show something different.

[RoadRunner71]

Can you say "Blow-off letter"?

Typical politician - blah, blah, blah.

[Divebum47]

Didn't say much. When he asks for your vote, give him the same BS answer.

[rottkeeper]

He will not get my vote, I would rather vote for the Easter Bunny.

[C9H13NO3]

Dear congressman,

Which of your two obligations will you choose? Upholding the constitution, or "protecting" citizens with "sensible" rules? Pick one, and please get back to me.

[grady]

Yeh, he didn't say much. Sounds like a form letter in which he tries to cover both sides without going on record as taking a position.

Or rather, he may be giving lip-service to the Constitution, but then stating his true objective as his "duty to protect the citizens of this country and provide sensible rules that ensure safety." I can guess what he means by that.

[nedrgr21]

21st Congressional District

Jim Buhrmaster (R): AQ

Paul Tonko (D): F

Buhrmaster receives the “qualified” grade also given to Treadwell; Tonko gets a failing grade set aside by NRA for a “true enemy of gun owners’ rights. A vehement anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.” Ouch! Tonko’s campaign offered no immediate comment.

[Gun Bunny]

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.

He's wrong on that point!!!

Nobody "gives" me a Right!!!

This right is inalienable

But right on that point!!!

So which is it, in his mind?!

[archer51]

Did he send any music with the letter that you could listen to as he tap danced?

[bandit383]

He's wrong on that point!!!

Nobody "gives" me a Right!!!?!

I guarantee the Constitution does...if it didn't say so, you would not have that "right" now. It would of been long gone...of course there is a difference between legal and illegal. Regardless, lots of other places that lost their "right" because they did not have such protections.

So...nobody???

Rick

[retsupt99]

Many of our states are filled with these 'toro feces' throwing artists...makes me puke!

[Dal1Celt]

Did he send any music with the letter that you could listen to as he tap danced?

I swear I heard "Singing in the rain" while reading his reply. Anyone else?

[obxned]

Some artists work in oil paint, some in water colors, some in stone or clay. This guy works his art in organic fertilizer of the bovine variety.

[packinnova]

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. Your opinions and insight help me to better balance these two objectives.

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.