Posted: 4/23/2007 1:22:56 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Please use this thread to share well written emails or letters that others would be able to use to help fight anti-gun laws. The idea is obvious, a collection of previously written content which will speed up our responses.
Hopefully this will become a valuable resource for everyone in protecting our rights!
Posted: 4/23/2007 1:35:53 PM
Posted: 5/15/2007 12:11:05 PM
Your street address
The Honorable Senator/Representative XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Senator XXX:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with factual information on an emerging 2nd Amendment issue. In the future you will, if you have not already, be hearing about a pistol sold in America called the FN Five-seveN. This new pistol is manufactured by FN (Fabrique Nationale) Manufacturing LLC based in Columbia, SC, a company with a long history of manufacturing firearms for Civilians and presently a contract supplier of weapons to America's Armed Forces. Anti-gun groups are dubbing the Five-seveN as the new "Cop-killer-gun." On January 14th former Presidential Press Secretary Jim Brady called for aggressive action against the Five-seveN. On January 15th, The Florida Department of Law Enforcement issued a memorandum warning agents about a the Five-seveN. What is it that has gotten the Anti-gunners and Law Enforcement in such a tizzy? The FN Five-seveN, with proper ammunition, can penetrate some forms of body armor and it is that fact that has everyone so excited.
Police use body armor designed around standards set by the Nation Institute of Justice and several levels of protection are available. Threat level IIIA is the highest protection level in concealable armor. It is intended for protection from high-velocity and high-energy handgun rounds such as the 9mm (fired from a rifle) and .44 Magnum. IIIA armor is typically constructed of 30 or more layers of Kevlar and is designed to stop a conventional bullet traveling at 1,400 feet per second. The Five-seveN's bullet travels at 2,132 feet per second, far faster than those of the 9mm or .44 Magnum, aiding its ability to penetrate body armor.
There is one thing that all body armor manufactures have in common. They issue a disclaimer with every single vest sold that reads: "NO Armor is 100% Bullet-PROOF." As a matter of fact, IIIA body armor can be penetrated by rifle bullets, unusual high velocity pistol bullets, pistol ammo fired from a rifle barrel, armor piercing ammunition, sharp-edged or pointed instruments, or other unusual ammunition or situations. There are a vast number of pistols sold in America than can penetrate level IIIA body armor so the Five-seveN is not in a class by itself. Some of these pistol calibers are: the 454 Casull, 475 Linebaugh, 50 Action Express, 500 S&W Magnum, and the 500 Linebaugh. These cartridges penetrate IIIA armor with conventional bullets constructed of copper and lead. The Five-seveN is designed to penetrate IIIA body armor with a special armor piercing projectile, designated SS190. You will hear about incredible feats of body armor penetration by the Five-seveN accomplished by a special 5.7x28mm cartridge specifically designed to penetrate NATO “CRISAT” & NIJ IIIA armor. What gun control advocates will fail to mention in these pretenses are that true armor piercing pistol ammunition is not available to civilians by law.
The SS190 armor piercing ammunition uses a pointed steel and aluminum core bullet that weighs just 31 grains, so it would take 226 of these bullets to weigh just one pound and it is about 1/5th the weight of typical 9mm projectile. This special ammunition is presently not available to civilians because the manufacturing and sale of armor piercing ammunition for handguns larger than .22 caliber has been prohibited by Federal Law for more than 10 years under Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322, THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 (enacted September 13, 1994). This is the same law that gave birth to the now defunct "Assault Weapon Ban" and while the provisions dealing assault weapons expired, those prohibiting armor piercing handgun ammunition did not.
If armor piercing ammunition were made available, almost any handgun made would be able to penetrate IIIA body armor. Senator, all that is needed is the enforcement of laws that already exist. There is nothing special about the FN Five-seveN and new laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals are uncalled for. Our Nation’s Laws already prohibit possession of handguns by convicted criminals, and armor piercing projectiles for those handguns is prohibited as well. So I say to you, please do not lend your support to any political movement that seeks to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment rights.
Posted: 5/23/2007 2:51:23 AM
[Last Edit: 5/23/2007 2:53:47 AM by DMCAR4]
Here is another worthy link to very simply email letters to your represenatives.
Please try and be active fellow ar15 members, every email counts for something.
Posted: 6/29/2007 12:12:53 AM
[Last Edit: 6/29/2007 10:34:44 AM by simplemitch]
Just yesterday i went through the 25 page thread and copied everyones letters so that others could pick and piece their own. Here ya go!!!!
<begin letter text>
HR 1022 is a horrible, treasonous bill that would, among other things, criminalize manufacture and sale of practically all semi-automatic firearms, for no good reason and in direct opposition to the US Constitution. I need your help in defending the Constitution from its domestic enemies, which apparently include Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, the bill's chief proponent. I need you to vote against HR 1022, should it slip out of the Judiciary Committee in any form. I also ask that you speak against any such laws at the first opportunity, and use your influence to prevent further introduction of same in the House when possible.
HR 1022 and bills like it are an affront to liberty. It would be no more effective in its supposed purpose than its predecessor, the poorly-named “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban." In 2004, AWB died a well-deserved death, ending – at least on the federal level - a 10-year witch hunt against things which should never have been illegal. Both during its reign of terror and after its expiration, there has been no evidence to indicate that AWB did anything to control violent crime. The “no mere civilian needs more than 10 rounds” and “mere civilians can't be trusted with certain weapons” mentality of the AWB is one suited to the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America. Certainly, AWB did nothing to aid (your state), nor would HR 1022.
Enforcing existing laws, and stopping bad laws that would criminalize peaceful citizens, are effective ways to fight crime. No great intellect is required to realize that violent criminals, by definition, pay no mind to so-called “gun control” laws, or laws in general. Ridiculous bills like HR 1022 would only further punish honest, peaceful citizens, while doing nothing to curb those who would initiate violence against their fellow man.
I am sure I can count on you to uphold your oath of office by voting against HR 1022. Thanks for serving, and I look forward to hearing from you on this topic.
<end letter text>
The House Committee on the Judiciary is currently considering H.R. 1022, to re-authorize the federal "Assault Weapons Ban". As a law abiding citizen, a law enforcement officer, and a sportsman I ask that you please do what you can to block this unneeded legislation.
You are not in need of any speech from me on the merits of protecting our constitutional rights, but from a law enforcement standpoint weapons save and protect many more lives than they endanger. This, among others in a long string of attacks on our Second Amendment rights, needs to be stopped and prevented from taking hold again.
Thank you for your representation,
PS. A statement of your position would be welcomed and appreciated.
Here is the email I sent to "To the Honorable Carolyn McCarthy" (Honorable? Please.)
"Let me start by saying there is NOTHING honorable about you. Your crusade to ban what you call "assault rifles" is against the Constitution. The Government cannot tell me what kind of gun I can own. If you want to reduce gun violence, ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS! The only reason that you are doing this is to ingratiate yourself to your Liberal supporters. There is no good reason to ban assault rifles. The fact that politicians ignore constantly is that even if you ban "assault rifles", the people who commit crimes with them will continue to get them. The fact that they are law-breakers to begin with means that they do not follow the laws about guns or anything else, so all banning them will do is take them out of the hands of the law-abiding, freedom loving citizens of this country. Most assault rifle owners are present or former military and law enforcement. These are the people you want in possession of weapons. Take myself for instance, I am a Former Marine Infantryman/Combat instructor. I not only know how to safely handle and deploy weapons, I am also capable of training people. Thankfully I live in a Non-liberal State, one that is military friendly, and will fight you and your Nazai-esque crusade on our right to bear arms. Your narrow view of the world, coupled with the fact that you yourself have probably never had to defend yourself or your country, and the fact that your dirty liberal fingers have probably never touched a weapon, makes you the wrong person to be dealing with this countries right to bear arms, Good day"
Dear Sir or Madam,
Proposed legislation in the form of H.R. 1022 seems unnecessary due to the implementation at the state level of most of the elements of HR1022. Additionally, elements of proposed HR1022 will criminalize many shooting sports enthusiasts and will create additional and unnecessary strain on federal courts and subsequently federal penitentiaries that could and should be avoided. The passage of HR1022 will overextend the rights of the federal government to managing issues that should be handled at the state level. Worse yet, sportsmen, shooting enthusiasts, and competition shooters will potentially be crimininalized simply due to possession of rifles whose sole intent is for competition shooting engagements. This is simply unacceptable, and HR1022 needs to be either rejected outright or modified so as to NOT criminalize the possession or sale of legally procured semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
Dear Representative DeLauro,
Please note that HR 1022 is an unconstitutional proposal and I would
expect emphatic and unequivocal opposition from any and all of my elected
representatives regardless of what my be politically correct or expedient.
Thank you for remembering your oath to uphold the Constitution.
my letter let me know what you think.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
First of all Sen. Corker allow me to congratulate you on your victory in our great state of Tennessee. As a resident of Chattanooga, and as one of the few conservative students left at UTC I was thrilled with your victory. My email tonight is concerning the upcoming proposal of yet another gun ban, H.R. 1022 put forward by Sen. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). This ban seeks to ban many semi automatic rifles used by sportsmen, collectors, and enthusiasts. She claims that such a ban would make our streets safer, I and many others contended that it would do nothing of the sort. The vast majority of firearms used in violent crimes are handguns, which are almost without exception illegally obtained and possessed in the first place. It should not be enough that just because an AR15 or M14 looks scary that it should be made illegal. On the occasions when an “assault weapon” is used it is almost always an illegally obtained and modified weapon i.e. the “West Hollywood Shootout”. The point needs to be made in congress that the states that have some of the strictest gun laws (NY, CA) still have some of the highest instances of gun violence. How anyone thinks that by outlawing anything makes it impossible to get is mind boggling. By making any firearms illegal you only insure that law abiding citizens will be unable to obtain them. Those who are willing to use them to hurt the innocent would think nothing of breaking the law to obtain them in the first place. It also needs to be said that the constitution does not give us the right to own sporting rifles, but was written specifically so that citizens of this nation would have military rifles. I ask you Senator Corker, were does it stop, if they take “assault weapons” away and crime still exists what then. Pistols maybe, and then maybe all semi autos, followed by maybe bolt action rifles, because after all Sen. Corker to a person who knows nothing about firearms a bolt action with a scope looks a lot like a sniper rifle. My point is, as I’m sure you are well aware all laws set precedence and once we start banning it won’t stop till we have lost it all. I chose to begin and end this email with quotes by one of the founders of this great country, a man who framed the constitution so many consider a relic of the past. I truly hope that knowledge and careful consideration will win out over fear and ignorance, I am truly afraid that this generation will be the last to enjoy firearms freely.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
FIREARM'S REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you understand?
12. The Second Amendant is in place incase the politicians ignore the
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15.Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
18. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
19. If guns cause cause crime, then matches cause arson.
20. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens tries to control
21. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
22.Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
23. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
24 The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
25. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people"
Dear Congressman/Senator ____________,
As one of your voting constituents and a life-long resident of Nebraska, I am writing to you to express my disgust in a proposed House Bill by Mrs. McCarthy of New York. The Bill I am referring to is HR 1022.
This is a new bill that would re-authorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that sunset on September 13, 2004. This ban prohibited many semi-automatic firearms by name or by certain features, because they looked similar to military firearms. These weapons were labeled as "non-sporting", and were said to be no good for hunting.
The fact that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and is solely about preserving liberty and freedom continues to confuse many of your colleagues in the House and Senate.
When this piece of "feel good" legislation was scheduled to sunset in September 2004, many elected officials in Washington made outrageous predictions about the dire consequences of the ban's expiration. We were told that violent gun crimes would skyrocket. They were wrong. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis. Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed”. She was also wrong.
This is nothing new. In fact, before the now expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban was made into law, less that 2% of all crimes were committed with what the anti gun advocates define as “assault weapons”. Hands and feet were used more often as weapons by a wide margin! In the 29 months since the ban expired, violent crimes with firearms have actually decreased in many areas.
It has been proven that violent criminals will never care about what laws are written, and that restricting the rights of good citizens has no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and New York are perfect examples, with some of the highest crime and most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
As a voter, law abiding gun owner, shooter, firearms collector, small business owner and father of two sons, I find it necessary to contact my representatives and remind you to fight for my Constitutional rights. The same rights that you have taken an oath to protect and defend.
HR 1022 is a horrible, treasonous bill that would, among other things, criminalize manufacture and sale of practically all semi-automatic firearms, for no good reason and in direct opposition of our US Constitution. I need your help in defending our Constitution from its domestic enemies, which apparently include Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. I need you to vote against HR 1022, should it slip out of the Judiciary Committee in any form. I also ask that you speak against any such laws at the first opportunity, and use your influence to prevent further introduction of the same in the House when possible.
Please continue to support law-abiding citizens, and our Constitution by letting Mrs. McCarthy and any potential co-sponsors know that the American people want crime control and not more restrictive gun control as presented in HR 1022.
The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is very clear, “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this letter and thank you for your service to our country and the State of Nebraska. As this is a very actively discussed subject on the internet, be prepared to receive other phone calls and letters, as I am one of many of your constituents that feel the same about this type of outlandish proposed bill.
I look forward to your response.
Dear Honorable Representative Ellison,
At this time the House Committee on the Judiciary is considering H.R. 1022, to re-instate the "Assault Weapons Ban" with additional provisions.
As a Minnesota Democrat, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and current member of the Minnesota National Guard I need your help to defeat this proposed legislation.
In many ways this is the same ban that was allowed to sunset in 2004 after having had no effect on crime. The AWB of 1994 did, however, succeed in alienating the Democratic Party from nearly half the population of the United States who lawfully own firearms.
I support every effort to decrease crime through offender rehabilitation and improving social conditions. However, I believe that this legislation, as with the AWB, would prove ineffective in combating the cause of crime, instead merely addressing a Hollywood representation of the symptoms. It puts the blame for a criminal act on a tool and not it's user.
Just as we Democrats have opposed many threats to the Constitution under the current administration, we should also oppose any threat to the Second Amendment as they are a similarly grave threat to our constitutional rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue.
Dear Honorable Congressman/Senator _______,
I am a voting constituent. You are my Representive/Senator.
Vote AGAINST H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
Do NOT vote for any more firearm restrictions.
Vote NO on HR 1022
Sen. Max Baucus
Sen. Jon Tester
Rep. Dennis Rehberg
President George Bush
February 26, 2007
I am the hunter and the patriot whose rights the 2nd amendment protects. I keep and bear arms to feed my family. I keep and bear arms to secure liberty against tyranny. I keep and bear arms to protect myself and my family.
HR 1022 is a direct unconstitutional infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
HR 1022 is treasonous. Failure to vote NO on HR 1022 is treasonous. Here in Montana, and we don't put up with treasonous horse sh*t. I petition you to be a MAN and vote NO on this HR 1022 horse sh*t.
I am watching closely and I will NOT forget how you vote on this bill.
Dear Mr. President,
I would like to bring your attention to H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. Although this bill is still in committee, it is without a doubt one of the most sweeping gun bans ever proposed and a direct attack on every American's Second Amendment rights. It goes far and beyond what the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did in scope and coverage. As Republicans and Americans, it is our duty and responsibility to prevent infringement of the Constitutional rights handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. Any gun ban only helps to disarm law abiding citizens and give criminals the upper hand. Criminals DO NOT follow laws. If this bill makes it any farther than committee I urge you to communicate to every representative and senator that their job is to defend every American's freedom to keep and bear arms, not restrict it. I would also hope that if this bill ever made it to your office that you would swiftly strike it down with a veto. Passing of H.R. 1022 would be one giant leap towards complete gun confiscation and beginning of a new era of liberalism for our nation.
Dear Representative ,
I am writing you to ensure that you will stand in opposition to H.R. 1022, the bill introduced by Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and any other anti second amendment Legislation introduced this session. As we in Florida and many other states have shown gun-control legislation does nothing to hamper crime, it only removes constitutionallyt protected rights from law abiding citizens. Florida’s right to carry laws should be a testament to the responsible nature of law abiding citizens when they are unbound by restrictive legislation and allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. Since these laws went into effect over 15 years ago crime in our state has dropped in a steady manner, and I believe, to date, not a single permit holder has been convicted of a commission of a crime that involves the improper use of a firearm. when law abiding citizens are held hostage by gun control, crime rates rise. It is our duty and right as citizens of these United States to defend our selves and our families. Infringing upon this right is not only unconstitutional, but it promotes crime, as is evident in cities like Washington D.C. and New York. These cities have the toughest anti-gun laws in the country and yet their crime rates are some of the highest in the nation.
I would also encourage you to introduce or support any legislation that actually gets tough on crime. It is apparent to me and many of your constituents that the only way to really reduce crime is to punish criminals. Plea bargains and reduced sentences are a major part of the crime problem in this country. Every day we read in the papers or watch on television horrible crimes that were committed by people that have records a mile long, and should have been in jail, not free to continue robbing, raping, and murdering.
It is time we stop passing “feel good” legislation that does nothing, and get to the root of the crime problem in this country, which is the criminal. Punishing criminals and protecting the rights of law abiding citizens is the only way to ensure a safer tomorrow.
Please help preseve my 2nd Ammendment Rights to lawfully own 'Sport Weapons' granted me under the Constitution and as a resident of Missouri. Please do not sign the unscupulous H.R 1022 bill recently introduced by Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) which makes erroneous claims that banning these weapon types will lower the crime rate nationwide.
This Bill would cause undue hardship on the many families which legally operate the companies which would come under attack by the unscrupulous H.R 1022 Bill if it were received by Congress.
Thank Your for your time and hard work.
One issue that has net seen much attention from the media yet, one that I think everyone should be made aware of, is the proposed reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, specifically, H.R. 1022.
This bill, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), if passed, will ban the sale, through an FFL dealer or private, of almost ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, not just guns like the AK-47. It will ban any firearm with features such as a removable magazine with a 10-round or greater capacity, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. the list includes firearms many people would not expect such as the Ruger 10/22, and can be interpreted to include the Remington Model 700, a rifle many hunters use as their primary sporting rifle. Hunters and collectors can no longer say that this does not affect them.
Anyone with and ounce of patriotism should immediately become furious with this obvious infringement on our constitutional right to bear arms. This bill would weaken the principles our fore-fathers gave so much to defend, as well as lead the way to more infringements of our rights as American citizens. To me, this is absolutely unacceptable.
Rep. McCarthy’s reasoning for the ban is to make our country safer by taking assault weapons from criminals. But why would any criminal conform to gun laws if they are not opposed to using weapons to commit crimes? So called “gun control laws” only take firearms away from responsible, law-abiding citizens, which further hinders our ability to prevent crime. More to the point, “assault weapons” are used in less than 2% of crime involving weapons. It is ridiculous to think that this proposed ban would have any effect whatsoever of reducing crime.
I strongly suggest that you stand up and make your voice heard on this issue. Take a few short minutes to write a letter or email to your congressmen and women to let them know how their constituents feel on this issue. We must stay away from the “Let the NRA deal with this” or “It won’t pass” mentality. That was the opinion of the majority of the gun-owning population in the early 90’s and they did nothing, resulting in the previous 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. We must not let this treasonous bill gain momentum, we must take a stand.
President Bush (et al),
I need your help in defeating H.R. 1022, a proposed bill to effectively disarm the American public in fashion reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. This proposition takes aim directly at my inalienable right to defense of self, family, and property, as well as the US Constitution itself. H.R. 1022 and other bills like it are aimed at attacking the very core principles our nation was founded under and has successfully operated with for centuries. Those who back such treasonous action are no friend to a free and liberty-driven society and must be stopped.
Proponents of federal gun control, the movement to systematically revoke one’s right to bear arms, have been trying to introduce legislation that would leave every citizen defenseless against possible tyranny of the federal government. The right to bear arms is afforded every citizen of the United States of America by The Constitution through The Bill of Rights. The great importance of this right, stated in the Second Amendment to The Constitution, is very apparent, as it was required to be added before the Constitution could be completely ratified.
The Right to Bear Arms
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (United States Constitution, Second Amendment)
This small part of the country-defining document known as The United States Constitution provides a guaranteed defense against a possible tyrannical central government. Although some reviewers have tried to tear the Second Amendment apart, saying each piece applies to a different right, the Amendment must be looked at as a whole to understand the intention of the author. The first part, “A well-regulated Militia” refers to an organized group of people, which is either regulated by the State or by the Militia itself. The next part, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” allows for the use of a well-regulated Militia to protect the freedoms granted the people by The Constitution or more specifically The Bill of Rights. The next section, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” re-iterates the previous sections with a specific reference of the means and reference to membership of a “well-regulated Militia,” the people. There is no mention of what arms can or must be. In fact, taken in direct context, this allows for keeping and bearing anything from a sharpened stone to a handgun to a backyard cannon, which indeed where all three in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights and could easily be related to commonly found weapons exiting today. Finally, the last part, “shall not be infringed,” is pretty simple to understand; it basically states that these rights cannot be taken away, no room for negotiation. In legal terms, the word “shall” is used to mean no allowance for deviation.
America’s Founding Fathers
Although most gun control advocates like to write into or take away from its very clear and concise verbiage, America’s Founding Fathers’ specific purpose for the Second Amendment was to protect the people from governmental tyranny. Statements regarding an armed populace, from the Founding Fathers’ are found in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Federalist Papers. John Marciano gives a few examples: George Mason states, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them", and Andrew Fletcher stated, "Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave" (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707). The Founding Fathers were very specific in the rights they were giving the people through the Bill of Rights, rights to remain a free citizens. In fact, the specific cause for creation of the US Constitution and the Bill of rights was to protect the people from governmental stripping of liberty as intended by H.R. 1022 and the prior AWB, which in simple terms was a witch-hunt to disarm law-aiding US Citizens.
A Country with out Gun Ownership
History has proven that countries, whose citizens are not afforded the right to keep and bear arms, are more susceptible to tyrannical rule and violent crime. When citizens yield all power to the government, a window of opportunity opens for the misdeeds of those that would weald this power for their own gain. Pierre Lemieux points to one such example of tyranny, The Vichy Regime of 1942 to 1944 (Lemieux, 1992). During the Second World War, the total German occupation of France resulted in thousands of Jewish people being arrested by their own French police, in order to be shipped to Nazi death camps. A right to keep and bear arms might have prevented the atrocities that occurred to those Jewish people who were never seen again.
Some pundits of gun control argue that preventing violent crime is the motivating force behind their actions. The argument usually sites theoretical figures of a would-be utopia where people are not allowed to own guns. These pundits state that if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. The facts prove otherwise. Guns do not commit gun crime; violent people commit violent crime with whatever means available. A bill to ban the ownership of all handguns in England, that was supposed to limit gun crime, was voted on and passed by the Members of the English Parliament (Copley, 1997). A recent study in London showed a threefold increase of crimes committed with the use of a gun, in one year, from February 2001 to February 2002. Statistics produced by the Internal Home Office, in February 2002, show handgun crime to be at its highest level since 1993 (Bamber, 2002). Laws only affect law-abiding individuals. The effect on law-abiding individuals is one of disadvantage, against criminals that will continue to commit gun crimes.
The Second Amendment was added to The Bill of Rights, do to a genuine fear that the central government would become too powerful and controlling. This right also limits violent crime, and provides every citizen an avenue of defense against would-be predators. The movement to revoke one’s right to keep and bear arms cannot be allowed to continue, and create a state of fear or uncertainty of the central (federal) government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny" (Bamber, 2002).
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope to see effectual action from your office on this matter.
Bamber, D. (2002, Feb. 24). Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/uk8.htm
Copley, J. (1997, June 12). MPs vote to ban all handguns. UK News. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/06/12/ngunn12.html
Lemieux, P. (1992, Sept. 8). Gun control: what are the real issues. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaim.html
Marciano, J. J. (n.d.). Handgun control, inc discredits itself. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707
Regarding HR. 1022
First off, I'm a soldier with the FSC, 1-187 IN BN, 101st Airborne(AASLT), and I'd like to voice my concern about HR 1022 introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy. I believe that this is not the type of legislation this country needs. I'm a 2 time Iraq vet, and this is NOT what I'm defending my country for. I am NOT going to sit and watch my rights be taken away from me. I am a responsible and educated gun owner, but even if I were not, I would know this bill is far from responsible legislation. In fact, it's outrageous. It's outrageous that someone as uneducated about firearms and ignorant to today's real issues as Rep. McCarthy appears to be, could stand to tell me what is wrong and what is right. It's incredable to me that somebody with so obviously little firearms knowledge could even be taken serriously, introducing a bill like this. HR. 1022 is far too broad and sweeping. It will take the rights so many have shed their blood for, from law abiding citizens and throw them to the winds like they never exsisted. I trust you'll listen to the rest of the responsible and informed gun owners across the country, and strike this bill down where it stands before it can do any irrepreable damage to this country. Thank you for your time.
My wife and I do not support H.R. 1022 in any form. We are asking you not to cosponsor this bill or any other bill that erodes our Second Amendment rights. My research shows you cosponsored a similar bill in 2005. Please rethink your position.
I would like clarification on the matter of HR 1022. As a responsible gun owner, law-abiding citizen and soldier in the United States Army I am confused. This legislation seems to be directed at me and those like me. I could understand firearms restrictions as they apply to convicted felons and those that have proven themselves un-trust worthy to own a firearm responsibly. That does not, however, appear to be the point of this proposal. Instead it appears to make criminals of everyone who enjoys their firearms for sport, collecting or personal defense. I am sure it has been pointed out to you before, but I will point it out again. When it is criminal to own a gun, only criminals will own guns. Who are you to determine what weapons I should own? Are you a subject matter expert on the proper use and application of weapons for sport or protection? If so I would enjoy speaking to you at length about the subject. Somehow I doubt this is the case. By enacting this bill you will essentially be disarming honest Americans. Maybe not immediately, but it will be its eventual effect. A disarmed America will not be America at all. America is what it is today because of its Bill of Rights, to be very specific the first two. To alter, disregard, dismiss, or delete the Second Amendment is a huge step away from our Founding Father’s principles. You may believe that times have changed and those principles are out dated; in that respect you may be correct. Times do change, but people do not. Our Second Amendment rights were drafted to protect us, the people of the United States, from people not times. People that would do use harm can only be dissuaded with force and violence. You may prefer to leave that to local law enforcement and if given the time and opportunity so would I. Unfortunately that is not realistic. The grim reality of the situation is that the only person fully responsible for my safety is me. This bill jeopardizes my ability to protect myself and my family. I took an oath when I enlisted into the army to uphold the Constitution and defend this county against all enemies both foreign and domestic; I consider this letter to be up-hold that oath. The proponents of this bill are a greater risk to the security of this nation, and its citizens, than any terrorist in a foreign land.
Here's a good web page on communicating with elected officials.
Here's the text:
Communicating with Elected Officials
Tips On Telephoning Your Elected Representatives
To find your senators' and representative's phone numbers, you may use our searchable online congressional directory or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your senators' and/or representative's office.
Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment.
After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message, such as: "Please tell Senator/Representative (Name) that I support/oppose (S.___/H.R.___)."
You will also want to state reasons for your support or opposition to the bill. Ask for your senators' or representative's position on the bill. You may also request a written response to your telephone call.
Tips On Writing Congress
The letter is the most popular choice of communication with a congressional office. If you decide to write a letter, this list of helpful suggestions will improve the effectiveness of the letter:
1. Your purpose for writing should be stated in the first paragraph of the letter. If your letter pertains to a specific piece of legislation, identify it accordingly, e.g., House bill: H. R. ____, Senate bill: S.____.
2. Be courteous, to the point, and include key information, using examples to support your position.
3. Address only one issue in each letter; and, if possible, keep the letter to one page.
To a Senator:
The Honorable (full name)
__(Rm.#)__(name of)Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
To a Representative:
The Honorable (full name)
__(Rm.#)__(name of)House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Note: When writing to the Chair of a Committee or the Speaker of the House, it is proper to address them as:
Dear Mr. Chairman or Madam Chairwoman:
or Dear Mr. Speaker:
Tips On E-mailing Congress
Generally, the same guidelines apply as with writing letters to Congress. You may find and e-mail your senators and representative directly from this Web site.
I am writing to express my outrage over HR 1022 and those that co-sponsor or are affiliated with it in any way. I did not fight in OEF/OIF, as did our other veterans past and present, against those that seek to take away our rights only to have clueless elected American politicians try to do the same with garbage legislation like this. I and many others consider this an insult to what we fought and sacrificed for, propagated by those that could be considered a Communist fifth column out to destroy the US Constitution. Absolutely pathetic and shameful.
HR 1022 and bills like it are an affront to liberty. It would be no more effective in its supposed purpose than its predecessor, the poorly-named “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban." In 2004, AWB died a well-deserved death, ending – at least on the federal level - a 10-year witch hunt against things which should never have been illegal. Both during its enactment and after its expiration, there has been no evidence to indicate that AWB did anything to control violent crime. The “no mere civilian needs more than 10 rounds” and “mere civilians can't be trusted with certain weapons” mentality of the AWB is one suited to the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America. Certainly, AWB did nothing to aid Massachusetts, nor would HR 1022.
Enforcing existing laws, and stopping bad laws that would criminalize peaceful citizens, are effective ways to fight crime. No great intellect is required to realize that violent criminals, by definition, pay no mind to so-called “gun control” laws, or laws in general. Ridiculous bills like HR 1022 would only further punish honest, peaceful citizens, while doing nothing to curb those who would initiate violence against their fellow man. I am sure I can count on you to uphold your oath of office by voting against HR 1022 as I upheld mine.
Dear Representative (insert name)
There is a piece of legislation called H.R. 1022 that concerns me VERY greatly. Its objective is to ban assault weapons and any sort of firearm that uses a magazine to feed it ammunition. This is a huge infringement on the 2nd Amendment. First, in all the United States assault weapons account for a very small percentage of gun related crime. Also, gun related deaths.
The framers wanted the citizens to be armed so we would be able to defend ourselves. This law severely prohibits that right. The government cannot always be there to defend us, we must be independent and able to defend ourselves. Especially, with the fact that Police don't show up at least minutes after a phone call is made.
You also cannot expect Americans to defend ourselves from possible foreign invasion with weapons that are severely out of date. The mere perception of an armed citizenry scared Japan during World War II. Admiral Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass" We cannot afford to let our super power status blind us into thinking that we are invincible and therefore the citizens do not need to be armed.
A ban on these weapons would also only disarm the law abiding citizens who owns these weapons. The criminals will always have means of obtaining these weapons. Who break the law in order to get them.
In conclusion, this legislation only stripes people of their inherent right to self defense and destroys the principles that our founding fathers put into building our nation. It must not pass.
Dear Congressman Upton
While I certainly appreciate you writing me regarding your reasons for not supporting President Bush’s “surge” policy, the reason for my email was to address H.R. 1022, recently introduced by New York representative Carolyn McCarthy. This resolution seeks to re-authorize the 1994 “assault weapons” ban but goes a LOT further than its predecessor. This bill institutes a PERMANENT ban on ALL semi-auto firearms that are fed by a magazine or clip (all of them are). Everything from .22 caliber squirrel rifles to the semi-auto handguns my wife and I depend on for protection, to venerable and highly collectible rifles like the WWII workhorse M1 Garand (sold through the government sponsored Civilian Marksmanship Program and prized by vets as a tangible, ownable piece of our history) would be permanently and forever banned.
This ban would effectively end such sports as high-power rifle competition which myself and thousands of others enjoy at such places as the Kalamazoo Rod and Gun Club as well as Camp Perry, Ohio every year (the M1 Garand, the AR-15, and the M1A are the three rifles used in this competition, ALL 3 are banned by this horrible bill.) They say that these weapons have “no sporting purpose” and that is a bald faced lie. Look up the CMP or the National Matches at Camp Perry and you will see ample evidence of the “sporting use” of these firearms.
While we’re on the subject, I don’t believe that the Second Amendment of our Constitution has anything to say about a so-called “sporting purpose” for the arms we are guaranteed the right to bear without infringements! The founders seemed to be more concerned with the use of arms as a safeguard of liberty and personal protection. This sentiment is echoed in the 6th Amendment of our state constitution back here in Michigan and the constitutions of all but two or three of the 50 states in total.
Going further, allow me to state that I disagree with the liberal re-interpretation of the Second Amendment as applying to militias and not the people. I refer you to the recent appellate court of the District of Columbia which re-affirms the intent of the Second Amendment as an individual right. It is also my belief that *if* we are to follow the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment, it would seem to me that the very weapons H.R. 1022 seeks to ban are the ONLY types protected by the Constitution, since you wouldn’t attempt to defend liberty with a single shot deer rifle or an over and under shotgun! But I digress…
This ban goes much further than the old ban, making thousands more guns permanently and forever illegal for no other reason than the fact that the bill’s author doesn’t like them. In 1994, so-called “assault weapons” were used in less than 1% of violent crime, during the 10 years of the ban “assault weapons” were used in less than 1% of violent crime, and in the 2 years since the 1994 ban sunsetted they have been used in less than 1% of violent crime. This begs the question as to why millions of law-abiding American gun owners are again under the threat of being subjected to this nonsense. Fred, you know as well as I do that no criminal intent on using a gun in the commission of a crime has EVER been stopped by any gun ban. The only people who will be affected by this legislation will be law-abiding citizens who would never commit such horrendous crimes.
As a Michigan “citizen soldier” and a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom; where I constantly exposed myself to danger on the streets of Sadr City in order to safeguard the freedoms of those who did not always appreciate my sacrifice; I am frankly angered that I now face a loss of my own Constitutional rights here at home by American congressmen and women who seem to have lost an appreciation for the Bill of Rights, and forgotten the fact that they work not for their special interests, but the American people. I have taken an oath similar to the one taken by those who serve in your house and I have not forgotten it. I am writing to implore you, as my representative in congress, to oppose H.R. 1022, should it come to the floor of the House, and to oppose any legislation that would seek to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of free and law-abiding American citizens.
Thank you for your time in reading this letter. I want you to know that since you asked for my opinions on your letter pertaining to the troop “surge” in Iraq that I intend to write a separate letter to oblige you. I am honored that you value my opinion that much and look forward to sharing it with you.
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush,
I am writing you today as an ardent supporter, a patriot, and one of the many soldiers who have the honor of not only calling you my President, but also my boss! I had the privilege of answering your call to duty after 9/11, when I joined the National Guard at age 30; and to serve as a military policeman in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad for all of 2005. It was an honor to serve the people of Iraq and America there, and I would do so again gladly if so ordered.
I am not writing you today about Iraq however, but about a domestic issue brewing in congress. Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York has proposed H.R. 1022, a bill which supposedly renews the old Clinton era "assault weapons" ban. This bill however goes much further than the old law which was not renewed in 2004. H.R. 1022 would completely ban every semi-automatic rifle, handgun, and shotgun produced today that utilizes a magazine (virtually all of them do). There is no sunset provision to this bill and it would last forever.
Some in congress say that these weapons have no "sporting purpose." Despite the fact that I find nothing in the Constitution that requires such a litmus test for the arms "the people" have a right to bear without infringement, they do in fact have several "sporting” purposes. I would direct your attention to the fact that millions of Americans across the country enjoy the sports of high-power rifle competition, service rifle matches, IDPA pistol competition, and the venerable National Matches held annually at Camp Perry in Ohio. In these matches, the M1 Garand, the M1A (civilian legal version of the M14), and the AR15 (civilian legal version of the M16) are the primary platforms used. All three of these would be banned under the proposed legislation.
I believe that it is also important to note that while I agree that everything should be done to punish criminals who abuse firearms in the commissions of crimes, this bill would only affect the law abiding. No criminal intent on doing violence was ever stopped by a gun ban.
Mr. President, I am urging you to please VETO any form of semi-auto firearms ban that might come across your desk in the coming months. I did not go to Iraq to safeguard the freedoms of others only to return to the sweet confines of the USA and have my liberties stripped from me at home!
Dear Senator Levin,
I am writing you today as a Michigander, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a patriotic and concerned American. Recently I read your comments regarding hunting writer Jim Zumbo and his recanted statement regarding the legitimate uses of so-called “assault weapons” for sport. Let me first say that I am very clear on your anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment views. I am not writing to try to change your mind but rather to register my disappointment with you and to articulate a few facts.
First of all, semi-automatic rifles such as the M1 Garand, the M1A, and the AR-15 have plenty of “sporting purposes.” You like to incorrectly refer to them as “assault weapons” because they have a military appearance; however they lack the ability to fire in “fully automatic” mode like their military counterparts. These three rifles are the primary firearms used in high-power rifle, a sport that goes back almost 100 years and culminates annually in the National Matches held at Camp Perry in Ohio. They are also used in Service Rifle matches held all around the state of Michigan and the rest of the country. How do I know? I am a competitor involved in this sport!
Semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 (the civilian version of the military M16) are also legitimately used in hunting and Jim Zumbo’s comments aside, have been for a long time.
While we are on the subject, I find NO MENTION of “sporting purpose” in the Second Amendment of the Constitution; nor do I find it anywhere in the 6th Amendment of the Michigan state constitution. The writers of both documents seemed to be concerned with the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny at home and abroad as well as personal protection. I see no “right to hunt” in the Constitution. In fact, it would seem to me that the very weapons they are again trying to ban in the House of Representatives are THE ONLY types of firearms the Amendment protects, since you wouldn’t use a single shot deer rifle or over and under shotgun to defend your liberty or your family!
Senator Levin, I daresay your party would find more support if they stopped trying to infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Gun owners, yes even people who own and enjoy semi-auto rifles and pistols, are good Americans who are loyal, true, lawful and hard working. No criminal intent on hurting another person was ever stopped from doing so by any gun ban; plenty however have been stopped by their intended victims with legally owned firearms.
I hate the fact that I am again left with no choice but to vote Republican once more. They are shot through with faults and deficiencies also, but at least they seem concerned with preserving the Second Amendment and my sport. Until the Democratic Party stops attacking my rights there is no way I can vote for any of you.
I realize that you have pretty much worked yourself into office for life, but perhaps you might warn some of your less fully ensconced colleagues to lay off the gun rights of lawful Americans. None other than Bill Clinton himself credited the last “assault weapons ban” with costing many politicians their careers.
That can and will happen again.
The Honorable John D. Dingell
House of Representatives
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2215
I am writing you today as a fellow Michigander, a concerned American, an avid shooter, a Michigan Army National Guardsman and a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I want to call attention to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's proposed semi-auto firearms ban and ask you to oppose it with all of your might!
This ban would end such great sports as high-power rifle competition, the National Service Rifle Matches held at Camp Perry, the John C. Garand Matches, IDPA Pistol Matches, etc... Not to mention the fact that it is an affront to the Second Amendment and American liberty.
Rep. Dingell, I know that you have a sterling record when it comes to
defending an upholding the Second Amendment and I hope you will lend your huge voice, wisdom, and reason into this debate. This legislation does nothing but infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. No criminal has ever been stopped from committing an act of violence by any gun ban! I certainly did not spend a year in Iraq defending the rights of the Iraqis (I was part of the security force protecting two elections and a constitutional referendum in 2005 as part of the 1/182 Field Artillery, based in Detroit) only to come back and have my rights taken away from me here at home.
I agree that those who would use any weapon in the commission of a crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, however this bill, were it to become law does much to harm the law abiding citizen while doing very little to deter the violent criminal.
PLEASE! OPPOSE HR 1022!
First of all Sen. Cornyn allow me to congratulate you on your victory in our great state of Texas. As a resident of Lake City, I was thrilled with your victory. My email tonight is concerning the upcoming proposal of yet another gun ban, H.R. 1022 put forward by Sen. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). This ban seeks to ban many semi automatic rifles used by sportsmen, collectors, and enthusiasts. She claims that such a ban would make our streets safer, I and many others contended that it would do nothing of the sort.
In an article published by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics published November 2001 (NCJ 189369) by Caroline Harlow Ph.D., a BJS Statistician, a survey was given to inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. 203,300 prisoners were found to have been in the posession of a firearm during the offense for which they were serving sentences. To quote the article:
"In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source."
How does Sen. McCarthy expect to change voilent crimes commited with firearms when 8 out of 10 guns are obtained by means other then "legal sales?" Sen. McCarthy also targets rifles and shotguns which are used in less then 4% of armed offenses committed. Additionally more then 70% of inmates never used a firearm in their offenses. The vast majority of firearms used in violent crimes are handguns, which as stated above, are almost without exception illegally obtained and possessed in the first place. On the occasions when an “assault weapon” is used it is almost always an illegally obtained and modified weapon i.e. the “West Hollywood Shootout”. The point needs to be made in congress that the states that have some of the strictest gun laws (NY, CA) still have some of the highest instances of gun violence. How anyone thinks that by outlawing anything makes it impossible to get is mind boggling. By making any firearms illegal you only insure that law abiding citizens will be unable to obtain them. Those who are willing to use them to hurt the innocent would think nothing of breaking the law to obtain them in the first place. It also needs to be said that the constitution does not give us the right to own sporting rifles, but was written specifically so that citizens of this nation would have military rifles. I ask you Senator Cornyn, were does it stop, if they take “assault weapons” away and crime still exists what then. Pistols maybe, and then maybe all semi autos, followed by maybe bolt action rifles, because after all Sen. Cornyn to a person who knows nothing about firearms a bolt action with a scope looks a lot like a sniper rifle. My point is, as I’m sure you are well aware all laws set precedence and once we start banning it won’t stop till we have lost it all. I chose to end this email with a quote by one of the founders of this great country, a man who framed the constitution so many consider a relic of the past. I truly hope that knowledge and careful consideration will win out over fear and ignorance, I am truly afraid that this generation will be the last to enjoy firearms freely.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
Assuring the safety of one's children is a parental responsibility that requires monitoring children's behavior, teaching them to manage potentially dangerous situations, and providing them with a safe home environment. Children who become victims of or participants in criminal activity do so due to a failure in one of these three areas. All of us will recognize that the tragic incidences of Columbine and so forth resulted from failures in the first category, proper parental oversight in children's activities. The same is true in the cases of urban youths who become involved with gangs or illicit drug trafficking and end up involved in criminal activity.
The rare, though tragic, injury or death of a child resulting from accidental exposure to firearms occurs due to the second parental responsibility I mention, that of teaching children to manage potentially threatening situations responsibly. Many of the men and women who visit this website teach their children safe firearm handling at even very young ages. These children grow up with a respect of firearms and the knowledge of their useful and potentially hazardous capabilities, and with such knowledge develop a responsible attitude toward them.
The third parental responsibility is that upon which legislation such as H.R. 1022 would impede parents in keeping their children safe. In the places where firearm ownership is highly restricted, criminals are many times more brazen in their efforts to break into people's homes when engaging in illicit activity than criminals in the places where firearm ownership is more liberal. In too many instances, criminals break into homes while the residents are on the premises. One recent example from the news will serve. While visiting a friend in Washington D.C., a district with high gun-control policies, I heard a troubling news report accompanied by an artist's rendering of a man for whom local police were looking. The man had broken into a home while the residents were present, probably with the intent to burgle. While in the home, the perpetrator came across the residents' adolescent daughter, raped her, and left the home suffering no injury himself. Upon hearing this report, one wonders how well the criminal could have fulfilled his sinister ambitions had the parents or the daughter herself had the means to eliminate the threat before the extent of the harm had been done.
In conclusion, harm done to or by children is less a matter of the presence of firearms, but rather lapses in parental responsibilities that threaten the safety of the children and our civilization more generally. But for those who say that the existence of firearms multiplies the extent of the damage of parental failure, I reiterate the responsibility of a parent to assure a safe environment for his or her children, which requires the possession of means to protect them.
well here is what i just printed out to hang in all the local sporting goods stores and some businesses:
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
- Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
- Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
- All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
- All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
- Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
- Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
- 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
WHO TO CONTACT:
Senator Byron Dorgan: Phone: 202-224-2551 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Senator Kent Conrad: Phone:202-224-2043 Email: email@example.com
Congressman Earl Pomeroy: Phone: 202-225-2611 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Ms. McCarthy; April 20, 2007
I am a veteran of the Vietnam War, and I oppose your bill. I have seen firsthand the results of what happens when people cannot be armed to resist those who will illegally use force of arms to accomplish their will, and any measure enacted against the right to defend oneself and their family by any governing body should be opposed.
Our first Congress saw firsthand what happens in a country where only the government is armed and I believe and trust in their wisdom to allow citizens to defend themselves in a manner which is equivalent to that which the government will have at their disposal. The people who will break the law now and perform acts of violence against others will also do the same regardless of how many more laws are passed prohibiting such activity, and your bill, HR 1022 will do nothing to change that. To ban the sale, possession, and use of weapons is just an invitation to criminals. This legislation will serve only to further weaken the ability of the law abiding persons in this country to prevent themselves being victims of violence, and will not dissuade those bent on criminal pursuits from the way of life they have chosen.
I do recognize that there is a problem with violence and crime in our nation, and that some of the crimes are being committed using firearms, but to deny the law abiding majority the opportunity to possess the weapons that will most effectively prevent them from becoming victims of those bent on lawlessness is not in the interest of the people, but instead serves the ends of the criminals among us. No amount of regulation will keep the offender from committing the offense, but it will actually promote the commission of the offense by preventing those who are capable of resisting attack possession of the means to do so. This has been proven time and time again, and yet no matter how many times the drama plays out the result is still the same.
There is no ill that this treatment will cure. If this were a medical situation, and the treatment employed were shown empirically to fail at the rate which regulation of weapons possession does in relation to violent crime, that treatment would be judged ineffective by the medical community and abandonment of it as a course of treatment would follow. In this case the treatment actually promotes the condition, and thus is actually a part of the problem and not a cure. Why must this be pointed out? Why is this not apparent to you, a trained medical professional? If we were dealing with a pathogenically related illness, one would realize that outlawing the infection is not going to cause the patient to recover. By the same standard that medical conditions are treated, the banning of firearms and appurtenances thereto is not an effective means to prevent the condition. In fact, it is impossible to prevent illness, as witnessed by the size and scope of medicine today. So why not understand that violent crime is going to happen with or without firearms, and concentrate efforts on dealing with those who commit crime instead of making the victims helpless? This is akin to banning hospitals because people die from infections caused by hospitalization, (nosocomial etiology). Everyone knows that hospitals are our best defense against disease, and so too are firearms in the hands of responsible citizens the best defense against criminals who commit violent crimes.
As a veteran, I am appalled at the number of times I hear about crimes being committed that could be avoided if the victim had been able to defend themselves. One of our greatest fears in today's world is being helpless in the face of harm, but one of the best ways to overcome that fear is to be prepared to deal with it. It should be the responsibility of every citizen to know what to do and how do it when faced with an attacker, and to act otherwise is irresponsible. Everyone should know how to defend themselves and those they love in the case of being confronted with the possibility of harm. If you want to really serve your constituents, and I believe you do, you should do everything in your power to allow them to help themselves be safe from harm. Banning weapons is not a viable solution since the criminal element will always be armed. The best thing we can all do is be prepared to deal with that fact, and by disarming the people, you actually contribute to the problems of violent crime rather than deal with them.
As I have said before, I have seen the results of disarming the people of a country and it wasn't pretty. When the people in the villages had to bow to the will of the Viet Cong, it was because they had no choice. They had been barred from possessing weapons by the French, and had no way to resist. The rest can be stated by looking at the map today - Ho Chi Minh City. 55,000 of my brothers and sisters have their names displayed on a wall of black granite at Arlington because the people of the Republic of South Vietnam could not defend themselves within the law. 55,000. Because guns were banned and not available. 55,000. Because we, the United States of America, had to step in and give them a fighting chance at freedom from tyranny. 55,000 and the public support for the 55,000 was ripped away by those who would not fight and those who protested the fight for those who could not fight back on their own. 55,000. That is what Vietnam was really about, and that was made possible because the people had no means of defending their homes and families.
My Father served in the Korean War - because the people of South Korea had no way of defending themselves. Japan confiscated all the weapons in civilian hands in Korea, and that is what enabled North Korea to overrun them in 1950. It isn't even about Communism or Democracy; this is about the right of self determination. Those who have power take it from those who don't, or those who can't prevent having it taken from them. It is all about power. When you figure out another way to prevent the criminals from seizing power from the innocent, let me know how, but in the mean time please don't take the means we have to do so away from us. Don't take hope away from the people; it is all they really have.
Posted: 4/16/2008 5:28:22 AM
I am sure I will be flamed for this. But does anyone happen to have one designed for democrats? I realize democrats are typically labeled anti-gun; however, I have noticed in my circle of friends (almost all democrats), not a one doesn't enjoy shooting. I am trying to formulate a letter just stating this, but more eloquently than I seem to be able to come up with. I am looking for a polite, informative letter just stating that even though I am a democrat, I do not support gun control measures beyond the keeping of weapons out of convicted felons and mentally handicapped persons. I do believe that the key is not to label all democrats as communists, etc, as this drives a wedge between people like myself who enjoy shooting and do not support the majority of gun control measures and the admittedly broader gun base of republicans.
Posted: 9/26/2008 10:12:23 AM
[Last Edit: 9/26/2008 10:13:11 AM by sredish]
another thing about letters is these people (congresspeople) will not sit and read long letter after long letter, they'll get bored and lost in it, so if you want to write someone, you need to make the letter very short, very to the point and politely matter of fact. This is the best way to make sure you have the best chance of getting your letter read and understood.
You shoot off a letter talking about tyranny and big borderline radical words, they're going to dismiss your letter and think of you as an out-there loon.
Posted: 9/27/2008 5:47:30 PM
I doubt if a congressman/woman even reads them. They probably have a secretary that "glances" at them and gets the jist of what your saying then reports how many people feel towards that particular topic.
Hey Nancy you get any letters on 1022?
Yes we have 5,000 against 500 for. Ok Thanks....
I honestly dont know for sure, but I could totally see that happening with todays congressmen and women.
Even still its good to send them in. I am just not so sure they should be long winded and over the top. Get to the point. It lets poor Nancy get through the rest of the letters/email faster.
Posted: 1/19/2009 12:52:23 PM
I got a subscription offer in the mail from the New York Times. Not a publication that supports gun ownership, nor many of the other things many of the posters here hold dear. SO instead of sending in a subscription, I sent this letter. The best thing is, I sent it back in their own pre-paid envelope, sticking them with the postage.
The New York Times
Home Delivery Department
To Whom it May Concern,
I recently received a mailing offering me a subscription to the New York Times. Over the past few years I have found the news reporting of your paper to be severely wanting. To say the New York Times produces one-sided journalism would be too generous. Instead, The New York Times spins the news to suit its many editorial and political agendas. Furthermore, I have found that the various agendas of the New York Time directly conflict with many of my strongest beliefs. I do not see any reason why I should give my money or my time New York Times.
When the New York Times returns to a higher standard of journalism, I may reconsider subscribing to your paper.
Posted: 2/28/2009 1:47:53 PM
Just my 2 cents worth (not that it's worth 2 cents anymore) from New Orleans/Baton Rouge area
There has been a bill introduced (HR 45) that proposes to register firearms in this country. No form of firearms or ammunition registration, banning of weapons, draconian taxation of firearms and ammunition, will stop any criminal activities by those who intend to inflict harm on innocent citizens.
As you know there was a shooting on Mardi Gras day. The perpetrators of this tragedy were breaking numerous firearm laws already on the books (felon in possession of a firearm to name one). One had a house arrest ankle bracelet on and both had criminal records, Why were they NOT in jail? If they were, this would never have happened. I am pretty sure neither of them would have REGISTERED their firearm if there was such a law.
Also, Attorney General Eric Holder has proposed to reinstate the so called Assault Weapons Ban to aid Mexico in their struggle with drug cartels. It was said, by Mr. Holder, that the cartels are buying firearms in America and sending them south of the border to further their drug war with the Mexican Government. Why would the drug cartels use civilian versions of weapons that can be easily be procured, in their military form from Central America, and cheaply may I add. As I understand, there are ALREADY laws that regulate or forbid transportation of firearms across the Mexican border. Now with this proposal, not only are law abiding citizens Second Amendment rights being attacked because of domestic criminals, now it’s because of another country’s criminal activity. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!
The record sales of firearms and ammunition since November 4th prove that the American people know that their Constitutional rights ARE under attack by those who are sworn to uphold these same rights. I and many like me feel very strongly about any regulatory schemes to restrict or forbid the peoples’ access to already legitimately bought, sold or owned firearms and ammunition.
As my representative and voice on the senate/house floor, you SHOULD relay these feelings to all in that chamber and stand against any and all legislation and regulation, whether standing alone or an addendum, that would further restrict the law abiding citizens Second Amendment right .
Posted: 3/2/2009 10:51:40 PM
List of House of Representative Members by state;
List of Senators by State;
Posted: 10/26/2010 12:02:06 AM
[Last Edit: 10/26/2010 8:32:26 PM by Renegade3745]
Good god, just ignore me.
Posted: 2/21/2013 11:04:09 AM
Not sure if this is the right place to post this but I have a copy and paste list for Colorado and Rhode Island:
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org; Blazejewski email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org