Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/12/2002 8:15:08 AM EST
Several weeks ago I sent a letter to my State Reps in the senate asking that they oppose any future gun control bills including any renewal or replacement of the assault weapons ban, the following is the response i received from Oklahoma senator James Inhofe: Dear Mr. XXXXX Thank you for your recent correspondence. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your views. I strongly believe in the rights provided by the constitution of the United States, and I feel that attempts to infringe upon these rights are a direct threat to our liberty, bought with American lives. The recent assault on the second amendment by the Clinton Administration and the liberal media has only steeled my resolve to protect our most fundemental rights. The rash of school shootings has heightened America's awareness of gun violence. Although the Clinton administration expressed concern for this grave situation, it blindly sought to cure the problem without attacking its true source. Rather than punishing violent offenders by using existing gun laws or attempting to revitalize society's diminished moral core, the Administration preferred to assault the rights of law abiding citizens. I do not believe that increased arms regulation will solve a problem the roots of which obviously run much deeper, and I have hopes that the Bush Administration's more thoughtful gun policy will make all the difference. When I was sworn into office after being elected to Congress, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads: "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." As your representative in the Senate, I will continue to staunchly oppose any attempt to tamper with our nation's Constitution or undermine our Second Amendment rights. Again, thank you for your comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me again. Sincerely, James M. Inhofe
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:22:14 AM EST
There are many States that are 'safe' for the RKBA, mostly in the South and West, and the Great State of Oklahoma is one of them! God Bless Oklahoma and its two Senators! God Bless the rest as well! But now, South Dakotans, what the Heck is y'all's excuse? Sen. Tim Johnson? Sen. 'Puff Daddy' Dasschole©? Eric The(Incredulous)Hun[>]:)] The term Sen. Dasschole© appears courtesy of [b]garandman[/b], copyright holder
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:49:45 AM EST
May I use that to send to the two WENCHES from Washington???
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:56:20 AM EST
sure
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:01:03 AM EST
Hmmm, what would I have to do and write to get my senators to respond like that? Schumer Hillary Am I fucked or what?
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:09:00 AM EST
Senator James Inhofe said, "Rather than punishing violent offenders by using existing gun laws...the (Clinton) Administration preferred to assault the rights of law abiding citizens." What makes you think that he's a good guy? All those "existing gun laws" are unconstitutional also! He'd have done better if he said that he was going to repeal the existing gun laws.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:31:49 AM EST
repealing is harder than preventing new ones. he seems good enough to me. id vote for him if here were in my area.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:39:11 AM EST
After the November election, the letter writing campaign for 2004 sunset begins in earnest. I too could have wished Inhofe would have said "I'll work to repeal all existing Federal gun laws" but am still pleased for what he DID say.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:42:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:44:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: But now, South Dakotans, what the Heck is y'all's excuse? Sen. Tim Johnson? Sen. 'Puff Daddy' Dasschole©? Eric The(Incredulous)Hun[>]:)] The term Sen. Dasschole© appears courtesy of [b]garandman[/b], copyright holder
View Quote
Can you say "Reservations"= government program lovers= loveeeeeeeee Dasschole!
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 10:04:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: Even constitutional rights are subject to [i]reaonable[/i] time, place, and manner restrictions. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, after all.
View Quote
Klinton said that the "assault weapon" ban was a reasonable common sense law. You can shout fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire. All firearms laws that create VICTIMLESS CRIMES are unconstitutional and should be repealed.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 10:07:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 10:37:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 12:04:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 12:10:34 PM EST by Kingme]
eswanson said " I suppose you'd think a law that prohibits convicted murderers from owning guns ought to be repealed?" If someone is truly convicted of murder, then he should have life in prison. So it's a moot point in him getting a gun. If he only got say 15 years, and was released, are you saying that his punishment should continue by him not having the right to defend himself? From what I'm learning about the law, I no longer view criminals to be as bad as the system makes them out to be. For example. Your legislator is duped into buying the concept that America must be disarmed. He gets unconstitutional laws passed that restricts the type of gun you can own. The Alphabet people reading these posts, finds out who is disregarding the statute, and raids them. The lawful citizen is found legally guilty and is sent to jail. Now, who's the bad guy? Hint, we're talking constitutionally. Also, you shoot somebody and a cop shoots somebody for the same theoretical reason. Who do you think is going to jail? And when you're in jail, does that make you the "bad" guy? If the cop's not the bad guy, why are you considered the bad guy? After all, you're the one who governs (or is SUPPOSED to govern) the enforcement of law. You're the one who is supposed to tell the cops what degree of enforcement they are to use. Why is that not happening? There are many reasons for injustice in America. Until the constitution is made to take center stage and until there is more civilian oversight of enforcement as well as ALL aspects of government, there will be injustice in America.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 12:08:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 12:11:04 PM EST by Ken226]
Im no constitutional scholar, but I dont think a person needs to be a constitutional scholar to understand the definition of the term "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". If anyone here knows of a different legitimite definition (other than the one in common use)feel free to enlighten me. While rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, the word "reasonable" means something different to each individual. If you ask Sarah Brady, she will tell you that a complete ban of all firearms is reasonable. If you ask me, ill tell you that if and when a convicted murderer completes his sentence, having his constitutional rights (including the 2nd amendment) restored, is reasonable. It seems to me that any law that infringes on my rights is unreasonable.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 2:21:56 PM EST
Don't you guys get it? The 2nd Amendment was intended for the state militia, now known as the National Guard. That is what the 2nd Amendment meant back in 1787! Note: The National Guard was not created until 1917!
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 2:27:11 PM EST
James Inhofe is the one guy you can count on to call it like he see's it. He has said some things over the air waves here in Oklahoma that left me speechless.. I have heard few Senators speak in the tone and manner that he does. He has been known to call certain democratic senators socialists right over the radio. Ben
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 2:43:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 2:45:00 PM EST by DevilsAdvocate]
Originally Posted By MisterGreens: Don't you guys get it? The 2nd Amendment was intended for the state militia, now known as the National Guard. That is what the 2nd Amendment meant back in 1787! Note: The National Guard was not created until 1917!
View Quote
The National Guard is a State-run operation. A state-run operation is not run by "the people". We ARE the poeple. The state is NOT "the people" etc... The Constitution is VERY specific and VERY consistant as to who gets the control of certain things. The 2nd Amendment is for the PEOPLE concerning a state militia, Not the state OR the government. I don't know of any other way to say it...Someone help me out.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 2:58:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By MisterGreens: Don't you guys get it? The 2nd Amendment was intended for the state militia, now known as the National Guard. That is what the 2nd Amendment meant back in 1787! Note: The National Guard was not created until 1917!
View Quote
I know your being sarcastic. I would like to add that congress officially recognized the 2nd amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right. But then said you still have restrictions right after that. So it was bittersweet to say the least but it is a step in the right direction. The OK. rep is a great example too. I do agree with most of you, some laws like criminals in violent crimes cant' own weapons legally is a great law that protects us that much further. THOSE are laws that have logic behind them, not like crime bills. Laws like the crime bill's are nothing more then laws created to appese the general public so they feel their elected officals are actually doing something.
Top Top