[rstickle]

I have to say, while it's not the response you'd like to see at least the answer had more thought and substance than the usual canned "No, because guns kill people", we usually get from our "Brady Brainwashed" politicians! :yup:

(At least she didn't cite that perverse TV broadcast with the deeply flawed experiment.)

 

[shooterX]

Well that's disappointing.

 

[barracudamagoo]

I have to say, while it's not the response you'd like to see at least the answer had more thought and substance than the usual canned "No, because guns kill people", we usually get from our "Brady Brainwashed" politicians! :yup:

(At least she didn't cite that perverse TV broadcast with the deeply flawed experiment.)

I hate to have to agree, but I do. It was somewhat refreshing to see a response that has thought and reasoning behind it. While I don't care for her view, I can respect that.

 

[RETSUPT99]

While I strongly disagree with her postion, I am always impressed with individuals who WILL give you a a direct (yes or no) answer with thier reasons behind it.
I hate fence sitters...or :bs2: artists!:hand1:

 

[grady]

If a senator is a democrat representing KC or St. Louis, it's almost guaranteed that all hope is lost.

There may be an exception here and there, but there won't be many.

Good for you for contacting her, but don't hold your breath waiting for her to change.

 

[Bark'n]

Wow... I have to agree with the others. You received more than your usual form letter response. Very clear and directed at your issue.

The one thing you could do, is research the "studies" she cited in her response to see if any of those studies have been refuted and dispelled. If so, you can follow up with your findings as well as some pro-campus carry studies which have not been refuted in hopes of carrying on the dialogue.

 

[hogdaddy]

While I strongly disagree with her postion, I am always impressed with individuals who WILL give you a a direct (yes or no) answer with thier reasons behind it.
I hate fence sitters...or :bs2: artists!:hand1:

+1 & He did not side step it :22a:

 

[BikerRN]

+1 & He did not side step it :22a:

I believe "he" is a she.

I happen to agree with her, to a degree.

Many college age youths are not responsible enough to carry a weapon, IMO. However many so called "adults" are really just children in overgrown bodies. It is a conundrum, and one that has no easy answer.

I understand her reasoning. I don't know if I agree with her or not. On the surface I would like to see people be able to carry on a college campus, or anywhere else for that matter. I do recognize that unlimited carry is but a dream and that certain "restrictions" will be, and have already been put in place.

One thing that gives me pause is the age requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If 23 is the age, then that should be the age of majority for everything in that state, IMHO. That includes voting, drinking, unlimited driving privleges, etc.

I have a lot of respect for her, based upon the answer she gave you. She didn't talk around the issue and say nothing. She took the time to reply directly to you. That earns her a lot of respect in my book. Keep that in mind when it's time to vote. She may not be 100% in step with you and your beliefs, but she appears to be honest and forthright, and that is very important to me.

I can disagree with someone, but still respect them. I can also agree with someone and not respect them. Just remember, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't." If you know her then you can manipulate and strategize to get her to vote how you want her to. That's called politics.

FWIW: I hate "politics".

Biker

 

[jumpwing]

Many 18 year olds are not responsible enough to vote, but they get to anyway.
Is the power to vote any less dangerous than the power to carry a gun?

Many 21 year olds are not responsible enough to drink alcohol, but they get to anyway.
Which has a higher body count: The misuse of guns...or the misuse of alcohol?

We have "irresponsible, emotionally unstable kids" under the age of 20 carrying machine guns and mortar tubes and assault rifles (REAL assault rifles) and driving tanks in war zones. As National Guardsmen, they run around cocked and locked in domestic disaster areas.

I don't buy the argument that military training somehow instills a sense of responsibility or maturity. Anyone who's served will tell you that among the fine men and women who serve this country there are dumbasses and dirtbags who continue to slip through the cracks.

As for college kids being more susceptible to suicide, this angle is often used by people who have zero education or training in the subject. Newsflash for our elected morons: Guns don't cause suicide. Neither do razor blades, belts, car exhaust, ropes, tall buildings, sleeping pills, bridges, plastic bags, train tracks, or highways. The concept is asinine. People kill themselves for reasons unrelated to the method they choose.

I'm particularly disgusted (but not surprised) by the arrogance of her opening remark:
"As an elected official, I represent constituents from my district as well as my own predisposition on the issue."

Fail. For those of you who don't know, the word "predispose" means having your mind made up beforehand. As in, before conducting any research, dialogue, or investigation of a subject. That's the "pre" part of "predispose." It is your initial reaction before acquiring any sort of education. Sorry, Senator, you were elected to represent your constituents, not to satisfy your own knee-jerk urges.

 

[Rob P.]

Interesting response. The fact that she states that her personal beliefs are the basis for her decisionmaking is sorta mindblowing.

Yes, she covers that by saying that the majority of her constituents agree with her position. However, if I were a resident of her district, I would like to know real numbers and what info she has to back up this statement.

Failing to produce that info would incline one to believe that it doesn't exist. Which could be used as a media weapon at the next election.

 

[Patti]

If a senator is a democrat representing KC or St. Louis, it's almost guaranteed that all hope is lost.

There may be an exception here and there, but there won't be many.

Good for you for contacting her, but don't hold your breath waiting for her to change.

You are correct. The dems from K.C. and St. Louis are very anti-gun. The dems that represent rural districts are more conservative.

If you remember, the state congress had to over-ride the democratic governor's veto so we could have the right to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[SIGguy229]

So....what about those students who are going back to school--those who have served in the military or raised a family or working on an advanced degree, but still have to work? Why can't they carry?----questions to pose back to your rep.

 

[tiwee]

More responsive than the usual. Wrong, but responsive. I am very interested in the studies she cited and what they really found. I am even more interested in who provides those kinds of references to our elected representatives.

 

[paramedic70002]

Many college age youths are not responsible enough to carry a weapon, IMO. However many so called "adults" are really just children in overgrown bodies. It is a conundrum, and one that has no easy answer.

I understand her reasoning. I don't know if I agree with her or not. On the surface I would like to see people be able to carry on a college campus, or anywhere else for that matter. I do recognize that unlimited carry is but a dream and that certain "restrictions" will be, and have already been put in place.

One thing that gives me pause is the age requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If 23 is the age, then that should be the age of majority for everything in that state, IMHO. That includes voting, drinking, unlimited driving privleges, etc.
Biker

1. Maybe laws could be changed to allow college students in Masters programs to be armed. They should be less prone to suicide and drunkenness. If all goes well, push the limit in the future.

2. With most states having 21 as the legal age to get a permit, and 18 to possess, the 232 argument doesn't hold water.

Interesting response. The fact that she states that her personal beliefs are the basis for her decisionmaking is sorta mindblowing.

Yes, she covers that by saying that the majority of her constituents agree with her position. However, if I were a resident of her district, I would like to know real numbers and what info she has to back up this statement.

Like it or not, we vote for people based on their "personal" promises when they run. They are not required to use any other system of determining how they will vote.

Our government of a representational democracy (republic), then, is an inherently flawed system, yet the best to protect freedom.

We would, and do, champion pro-2A legislators who might use pro-2A literature as a prop for their pro-2A personal beliefs. We believe they see the light while anti-2A legislators live in darkness.

 

[jjkjr]

I sent this letter to state senator Joan Bray (D-STL)




Therefore, I oppose legislation that would make acquiring and owning concealed weapons easier, as House Bill 668 would have done. Not only would it have lowered the minimum age for getting a permit from 23 years old to 21, but this bill would also have allowed a person with a license to conceal and carry on college campuses. Hundreds of studies within the past few decades, including many recent studies (Dixon, S.K. and S.E. Robinson Kurpius. 2008. Depression and College Stress Among University Undergraduates.; Kerr, S., et al. 2004. Predicting Adjustment During the Transition to College: Alexithymia, Perceived Stress, and Psychological Symptoms.;

I understand not changing the age...... but stress..... come on one has to go through a check..they do that here in Missouri...... so what makes a college more stressful than working and wondering if your going to have a job or not the next day. or wondering if your 401k is going to have anything left in it. or how much will they raise the taxes this time...

it was still a grasp of an excuse.... JMO

 

[Spirit51]

So....what about those students who are going back to school--those who have served in the military or raised a family or working on an advanced degree, but still have to work? Why can't they carry?----questions to pose back to your rep.

My thoughts exactly. I am sure there are many adult students, as well as adult professors, office workers, maintenance workers. security, and many others. A campus is NOT made up of underage persons alone.

 

[diverdown247]

She's another one that needs voted out next election because she does not read the bills that are put in front of her.

It wouldn't have made it easier to acquire/purchase....it would have made it easier for legal permit holders to carry and protect themselves. Can't fix stupid!

She of all people should also know that every one of those studies she might refer to fail to accurately represent the population based on small sample sizes and tons of bias issues. Bet she doesn't have a clue to the statistics related to alcoholism and college students, which is exponentially more deadly than guns AND influences negative behaviors.

 

[ccw9mm]

Here's the reply I just received:

"... Therefore, I oppose legislation that would make acquiring and owning concealed weapons easier, as House Bill 668 would have done. Not only would it have lowered the minimum age for getting a permit from 23 years old to 21, but this bill would also have allowed a person with a license to conceal and carry on college campuses.

What can you say about this kind of thinking?!

She's correct in stating that relaxing the age to 21yrs for when adults may apply for licensing would spread the availability of firearms. She's correct in stating that extending the range where adults may legally carry firearms onto campuses would spread the availability of firearms and make their carry more prevalent.

However, like you, I'm of the opinion that people who think like her are horribly misguided in their twisting of facts to reach the absurd conclusions they reach. She believes that such changes in the "Castle" laws in MO would result in a riskier environment on campus, merely because more lawful guns would exist, despite the fact that thousands more lawful, upstanding people would be able to resist the predations of murderers and rapists on campus.

Beyond rape and death of her own daughters in situations where being armed could have helped, I can see no possible situation in which she'll change her mind and see the light.

The logic your senator has presented is nearly identical to that of my own Oregon legislator, U.S. Representative David Wu.

• He believes that any reduction in the availability of firearms to upstanding citizens results in a reduction in risk, threat and deaths to upstanding citizens.
  
  
• He likewise fails to recognize that it's only CRIMINALS who threaten and kill upstanding citizens.
  
  
• He refuses to accept that licensed, upstanding adults throughout the state are significantly more law abiding than the average population.
  
  
• He refuses to accept the idea that having more licensed, upstanding adults carrying the means of their own defense onto campuses would result in riskier environments for criminals.
  
  
• He would prefer campuses to remain shining beacons of disarmed sheep, advertised as such for all the criminal world to see. He apparently abhors the idea that a campus full of upstanding adults could make it far safer than ever, a veritable mine field for criminals.
  
  
• He also fails to see the litany of horrors that has plagued campuses, churches and other victim disarmament zones and to call it what it is: a direct result of the failed policies of a gun-grabbing legislature that would prefer students be murdered at the hands of criminals instead of having a fighting chance to defend themselves.

I have sent him letters and emails for awhile, now. Yet, I keep getting a series of wishy-washy discussions about the threat to children and people who cannot protect themselves, when the most-effective method for protection is the one thing he won't consider.

OMG, it's a "gun" in the room! Yaaaaraarahgghaghagh!

And all of this despite the fact that Oregon's legislature has specifically stated that adults may carry firearms on campuses, but the schools continue to fire staff and faculty and expel students.

How to change such irrational thinking and correct the crime being perpetrated against the upstanding citizens of our states? I wish I knew. :tired:

 

[XD45SWMo]

Fortunately, Her term limit is up and She is not eligible for reelction in 2010.