Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 11/6/2001 4:46:44 AM EDT
Dear Mr. Rollenhagen: Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns regarding H.R. 1762, the Second Amendment Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from you. H.R. 1762, introduced by Representative Paul, seeks to repeal the Brady Act and to make changes to the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the definition of a destructive device. This legislation is currently pending before the House Committee on the Judiciary. Please rest assured that I do not support gun control initiatives that seek to take guns away from law abiding citizens. However, I do not support repealing the Brady Act which requires, in part, that a federally licensed firearms dealer conduct background checks when individuals seeks to purchase firearms. I believe that these background checks are necessary to prevent individuals such as convicted felons or persons with a history of mental problems from obtaining firearms. The Brady Act seeks to protect society so that guns do not fall into the hands of persons that should not possess them, while allowing law abiding citizens to retain their right to purchase firearms. Again, thank you for sharing you comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff if you have further questions. Sincerely, BART STUPAK Includes all the typos. I have ideas for my response but would like to hear from you guys as well. TIA
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 4:51:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/6/2001 4:45:01 AM EDT by 11H1P]
Reply: Thank you for your stance in opposition to freedom. It is a shame that you do not trust your constituents with control of their lives, and would rather have government accept responsibility for peoples' actions instead of the individual. I will disseminate this as widely as possible to insure that you are not given the chance to restrict freedom anymore than you have. Sincerely, ___________
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:12:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: Dear Mr. Rollenhagen: I believe that these background checks are necessary to prevent individuals such as convicted felons or persons with a history of mental problems from obtaining firearms. The Brady Act seeks to protect society so that guns do not fall into the hands of persons that should not possess them, while allowing law abiding citizens to retain their right to purchase firearms. Sincerely, BART STUPAK TIA
View Quote
Dear Mr. Stu(pid)Pak - Please explain to me HOW a law, like the Brady Act, will keep a felon from buying a firearm, ESPECIALLY since he can obtain a firearm illegally from other felons for 1/2 to 1/3 the price a Federally licensed firearm dealer would charge him??? If laws were enough, wouldn't the laws against murder and armed robbery "set him straight?" More logically, all the Brainless Act has done is embolden felons to break into homes to STEAL firearms (which means they get them for "FREE" ) thereby endangering homeowners. In the real world, the demand for firearms by criminals remains unchanged. The Brady law has simply shifted the supply away from legal dealers, and bolstered black market sales, and thefts of firearms from legal owners, as well as dealers. In short, the Brady Act is feel good legislation that DOES NOT slow the acquisition of firearms by those who should not have them, but DOES unConstitutionally restrict the rights of "freemen" who, according to out third president, should "never be disbarred from owning arms." Your inability to grasp this most basic logic makes me question your suitability to govern in ANY capacity. Rest assured i will be watching your actions closely up until the next election, and will act accordingly the next time the voting booth opens." Thanks, Halfcocked
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:13:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 11H1P: Reply: Thank you for your stance in opposition to freedom. It is a shame that you do not trust your constituents with control of their lives, and would rather have government accept responsibility for peoples' actions instead of the individual. I will disseminate this as widely as possible to insure that you are not given the chance to restrict freedom anymore than you have. Sincerely, ___________
View Quote
That might be a tad strong, but, I think it would get the message across to him. Maybe a few more letters from others would drive it home.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:21:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Green_Furniture:
Originally Posted By 11H1P: Reply: Thank you for your stance in opposition to freedom. It is a shame that you do not trust your constituents with control of their lives, and would rather have government accept responsibility for peoples' actions instead of the individual. I will disseminate this as widely as possible to insure that you are not given the chance to restrict freedom anymore than you have. Sincerely, ___________
View Quote
That might be a tad strong, but, I think it would get the message across to him. Maybe a few more letters from others would drive it home.
View Quote
Yep, strong it is, but then so was the Oath that he took "to uphold and Defend the Constitution" which includes ALL of the BoR. Those that would legislate against ANY of our Freedoms could technically and probably legally be said at best to be violating the Oath of office. I gave up my rights, willingly, to protect those Rights for the Citizenry. I do not wish to see them pissed away for false "security". [b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b] [b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE! 2/505 PIR H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]
[i]You might be Airborne if... you have ever demonstrated a PLF in front of the company coffee pot. - John "Doc" Horton[/i]
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:23:23 AM EDT
stupak@mail.house.gov or; Bart Stupak 1st District, Michigan 2348 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:24:28 AM EDT
Green_Furniture, The rant was [b]NOT[/b] directed at you, bro. I just feel that if all who think like us, who would die to preserve our Freedoms, would take about 10 min. a week to send correspondence to our elected reps, could not only STOP the erosion of our rights, but even restore them. The complacency must stop! [b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b] [b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE! 2/505 PIR H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]
[i]You might be Airborne if... you have ever demonstrated a PLF in front of the company coffee pot. - John "Doc" Horton[/i]
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:34:33 AM EDT
I'm with you. I'm just saying that there needs to be a [b]bunch[/b] of letters sent to the prick. I'm writing one right now.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:39:43 AM EDT
Not to discourage anyone , but.... UNLESS the letter is to YOUR Congresscritter, there's a GOOD chance it gets kicked into "File 13." Although, that hasn't often stopped me.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 5:46:18 AM EDT
I was thinking along the lines of useless laws that have zero impact and inhibit the actions of law abiding citizens. I would go on to say that... "as is evidenced by my letter I am fairly active in politics with my friends, colleges and co-workers and that I constantly put pressure on them to think about the only power they have is exercised at the voting booth. I would hate to have to encourage a position opposed to someone who has done so much for Michigan. (this last part is make him think I voted for him in the past and that he stands chance of getting it again...NOT, Read friggin Democrap). But actually I think I will incorporate (some of) 11H1P's comments.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 8:53:11 AM EDT
My reply would be: "Sir you are either with the Constitution or against it! Which are you?"
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 9:35:06 AM EDT
Representative Stupak- As a longtime and loyal supporter of yours, it pains and disappoints me immensely that you have chosen to support the Brady Act. As a responsible gunowner, sport shooter and hunter, I can say with all honesty that the Brady Act and similar pieces of gun control related legislation have served to only penalize and hinder those of us who've chosen to live our lives within the law. Career criminals and others who've chosen to live outside the confines of the law have been and are largely unaffected by the enaction of the Brady Act. I, along with many other responsible gun owners and hunters in your district, support stepped up enforcement of current Federal and State gun control laws. We also support the passage of laws with harsher punishment for criminals who choose to steal firearms. Currently it is no more a crime to steal one's television or stereo than it is to steal a firearms collection. I would hope that you would also support these proposals, Congressman Stupak. However, as long as your current stance in regards to the Brady Act is maintained, I cannot in good faith support or vote for you. I appreciate the time you've given me to express my views. Sincerely, (your name here)
Top Top