Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/5/2003 8:18:48 PM EDT
So our elected "reps" don't all get form letters and the same emails, lets see whose gifted. Post your best "sent" or "to be sent" letters here. This way we have a large sampling of formats, points addressed and ideas. And to sweeten the pot, the person with the best judged letter (to be established by poll at a later date) will win something FREE from me. I don't know what that will be yet but it will be cool. And it won't be something cheap or gay like a keychain.
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 9:03:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2003 10:24:54 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Here's one of the letters I [b]already sent[/b] to my Rep - I'll be sending more (shorter ones) throughout the year as well. I posted it in your other AWB'03 thread so I guess I'll post it here too: Page 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jeff Flake United States House of Representatives [b]RE: H.R.143 and the "Assault Weapon Ban" [/b] Dear Congressman Flake, As a registered Republican and one of your constituents in the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, I am writing to inquire about your position on [b]H.R.143: "Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 2003"[/b] as well as the original 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" which is due to sunset in 2004. As you probably know, "assault weapons" as defined by the 1994 ban are not machineguns but rather simply civilian versions of military-style weapons. I believe such laws restricting or banning "assault weapons" should be strongly opposed for the following reasons: [b]1)[/b] "Military-style" firearms are [b]specifically[/b] protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court opinions written in [b][i]U.S. v. Miller[/b][/i] (1939) and [b][i]Lewis v. U.S.[/b][/i] (1980). [b]2)[/b] "Assault weapons" are the [u]LEAST COMMON[/u] types of guns used in crimes and the 1994 "Assault Weapon" Ban has [u]NOT[/u] been shown to benefit public safety according to the most recent US Dept. of Justice reports. [b]3)[/b] Many gun-control leaders openly admit that the assault weapon ban is not aimed at reducing crime but is just the "first step" towards the banning of ALL privately-owned guns. [b]4) Most importantly[/b] - The right to keep and bear arms by citizens to defend against criminals, lawlessness, invasion and tyranny has been strongly and consistently defended by most American leaders throughout our nation's history. [center][i]{Details included in addendum}[/i][/center] Sir, I respectfully ask you to keep these points in mind and [b]I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 143 and ANY OTHER[/b] extension or expansion of any "assault weapon ban" on the grounds that: * It is a clear a violation of the 2nd Amendment according to several Supreme Court cases, * It does not address any major factor in preventing violent crime, * It is obviously just a stepping stone towards complete banning of all guns and, * It clearly contradicts the deeply held principles cherished by our founding fathers as it violates citizen's rights to defend themselves against crime and oppression. Remember that the "gun-control" issue was a major factor in the success of conservative Republicans in both the 2000 and 2002 elections and will continue to be so in the future. [b]In short, what is your position on the "assault weapon ban" and any possible extension of that ban after it sunsets in 2004?[/b] I thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, T. Macallan Street Address City, AZ Phone Number ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 - [center]Addendum[/center] [b]1) "Military-style" firearms are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in [i]U.S. v. Miller[/i] (1939) and [i]Lewis v. U.S.[/i] (1980). [/b] [b]*[/b] In the [b]Miller[/b] decision the Supreme Court stated, [i]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".[/i] [b]*[/b] In the [b]Lewis[/b] decision, the Supreme Court stated, [i]"the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'"[/i]. [b]*[/b] Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "military-style" firearms are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment. [b]2) "Assault weapons" are the LEAST COMMON type of gun used by armed criminals and are NOT a major threat to public safety:[/b] According to the most recent US Dept. of Justice statistics on firearms and crime(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf): [b]*[/b] Only [b]1.5%[/b] of state inmates and [b]1.7%[/b] of federal inmates possessed military-style weapons while committing crimes for which they are sentenced. And only [b]2.5%[/b] of state and [b]2.3%[/b] of federal inmates had EVER possessed a military-style firearm during the commission of ANY crime. According to the NIJ 1999 Report To Congress: "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96" (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf): [b]*[/b] [i]"The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."[/i] [b]*[/b] [i]"The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."[/i] [b]*[/b] [i]"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."[/i] [b]3) For gun-control leaders, selective gun-control laws banning "certain" guns are just the first step towards the banning of ALL privately-owned guns.[/b] [b]* Sen. Diane Feinstein D-CA:[/b] "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." [b]* Rep. Charles Schumer D-NY:[/b] "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" [b]* Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE:[/b] "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." [b]* Sarah Brady:[/b] "The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough." [b]* Frmr. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-OH:[/b] "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." [b]4) The right to keep and bear arms by citizens to defend against criminals, lawlessness, invasion and tyranny has been strongly and consistently defended by most American leaders throughout our history.[/b] [b]* Thomas Jefferson:[/b] "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes" [b]* Samuel Adams:[/b] "The said Constitution be never construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." [b]* Thomas Paine:[/b] "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." [b]* James Madison:[/b] "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms" [b]* Hubert Humphrey:[/b] "But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." [b]* John F. Kennedy:[/b] "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and [u]the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'[/u], our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 9:07:53 PM EDT
Shit, you win Macallen. That's good stuff.
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 9:16:05 PM EDT
Damn, Mac, That's a well crafted letter. The only weakness I see is failure to quote the source of each quote. Do you mind if I plagiarize a bit in crafting my own?
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 10:14:12 PM EDT
::::jaw drops::: Umm....errrr.... You mind if I use that in Minnesota?
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 10:41:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]*[/b] In the [b]Miller[/b] decision the Supreme Court stated, [i]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".[/i] [b]*[/b] In the [b]Lewis[/b] decision, the Supreme Court stated, [i]"the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'"[/i]
View Quote
Perhaps it is just me, but the examples you have used above, the way they are written, make it sound as though the Supreme Court was taking an anti-Second Amendment stance.
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 10:55:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2003 10:56:36 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By diverdown:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]*[/b] In the [b]Miller[/b] decision the Supreme Court stated, [i]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".[/i] [b]*[/b] In the [b]Lewis[/b] decision, the Supreme Court stated, [i]"the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'"[/i]
View Quote
Perhaps it is just me, but the examples you have used above, the way they are written, make it sound as though the Supreme Court was taking an anti-Second Amendment stance.
View Quote
Not really. Both decisions were underscoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect firearms that have "some reasonable relationship" to military use. This is something that has long since been forgotten by many as all the antis nowadays keep talking about the need to demonstrate a "sporting use" for firearms a la the 1968 Firearms Act which, in a grave error, codified the "sporting use" notion. Basically the SCOTUS in those rulings affirmed that only firearms that serve military purposes (like "assault rifles") are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Link Posted: 3/5/2003 10:56:01 PM EDT
Well diverdown, the Miller decision made quite clear that in the eyes of the supreme court at the time, individuals had a right only to military weapons, suitable for militia service. As the Miller case revolved around possession of a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax it should have been a lead pipe sinch for the defence. Except there was no defense. No one showed up to argue for Miller, there was just a brief. So there was no one to present in evidence that sawed off shotguns had been used in military service. Which would have just about ended the NFA.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 8:27:34 AM EDT
OK, Mac set the bar pretty high. But don't have him win by default. Let's see what you guys wrote anyway.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 8:36:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: So our elected "reps" don't all get form letters and the same emails, lets see whose gifted. Post your best "sent" or "to be sent" letters here. This way we have a large sampling of formats, points addressed and ideas. And to sweeten the pot, the person with the best judged letter (to be established by poll at a later date) will win something FREE from me. I don't know what that will be yet but it will be cool. [red]And it won't be something cheap or gay like a keychain.[/red]
View Quote
Will it be something cool like a Vollmer conversion MP5? [;D]
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 8:39:50 AM EDT
Here's mine- ---------------------------------------------- Yo Dickhead! Repeal the AW Ban or me and my Cronies (American Citizens) will vote your stupid ass out of office. -Gun owner, Constituent, VOTER! ---------------------------------------------- Ya like? [BD]
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 8:39:53 AM EDT
Sheesh Mac, if everyone would send you $.25 everytime that thing was copied and sent, you'd be rich. I'm not even gonna try to beat it. Since I have Grijalva (UGH!!!!!!!!!!!), do you mind if I use it?
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 8:47:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Will it be something cool like a Vollmer conversion MP5? [;D]
View Quote
Probably not. [;)]
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 9:14:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2003 9:20:10 AM EDT by slt223]
Unless you are speaking to an agreeable audience, I see #2 being interpreted as a need to do more. It's pretty easy to turn that one around. This is a good letter though. It's giving me some good ideas for the contents of my letter. Edited to mention: I was referring to the bottom of #2.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 9:28:49 AM EDT
[mumbling] damn edumacated frikkin kids showin off [mumbling][;)][;)] Great letter Mac ! Pg
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 10:19:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2003 10:23:17 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By slt223: Unless you are speaking to an agreeable audience, I see #2 being interpreted as a need to do more. It's pretty easy to turn that one around. This is a good letter though. It's giving me some good ideas for the contents of my letter. Edited to mention: I was referring to the bottom of #2.
View Quote
Okay. But only a lunatic would conclude that if restricting people's rights has no effect on crime - then the answer is... to restrict those rights even more! That evidence should support the Pro-RKBA folks, should sway the rational Neutral/Undecided folks and will probably have no effect on the irrational Anti-RKBA folks because they don't care about facts - they're just stupid. The whole idea of the "sunset" was for Congress to re-examine whether this ban worked. It's EXPECTED that this type of evidence will be looked at by Congress. In the debate surrounding the attempt to overturn the AWB back in 1996, [url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/gun_ban_3-21.html]Chuck Schumer[/url] said: [b][i]"...there's a 10-year sunset on this. In other words, it ends after 10 years. [red]Let's wait and see...if it's working,[/red] instead of banning - repealing it after only three, four months."[/i][/b] Schumer [b]ASKED[/b] for it - let's hit him right between the eyes with the evidence that the '94 "Assault Weapon/HighCap Mag" Ban [b]FAILED[/b] to produce dramatic reductions in firearm-related crimes, murders and multiple gun-shot victims - as it was promised to. It's [b]NOT working[/b] Chuckie. It [b]FAILED[/b]. The facts prove it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 10:48:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Will it be something cool like a Vollmer conversion MP5? [;D]
View Quote
Probably not. [;)]
View Quote
Is it a no-knock dynamic entry? I don't want anymore of those.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 11:33:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SA: I don't know what that will be yet but it will be cool. And it won't be something cheap or gay like a keychain.
View Quote
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Is it a no-knock dynamic entry? I don't want anymore of those.
View Quote
LMFAO! You guys crack me up!
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 12:22:57 PM EDT
Dear elected official: If you renew the AW ban, I will kick you square on the nuts! You've been warned. Regards, The citizenry
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 12:34:59 PM EDT
For the most part politicians just keep count of how many people write for or against something. Meaning, even if you feel you can't right a perfect letter, send them a note anyway, your voice will count. If you don't write them, you will not be no heard and the anti's who are also writing will be heard.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 2:08:48 PM EDT
Well done The_Macallan! Hmmmmmmm. SA, Can we have another contest for everyone [b]EXCEPT[/b] Mr. The_Macallan?
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 9:19:45 PM EDT
Dear Mr. Congressman, I'm in favor of the Band Against Assualt Weapons. I want to know what you think and what you're going to vote. I think we MUST have a band on these kinds of assault weapons. If their not banned, they'll be too many of them on the street and they can hurt people a lot at a time! No one needs an AK47 to hunt ducks. There is just NO REASON FOR people to have these kinds of guns. They don't do anyone any good!! When was the last time we had a revolution? What good were they back then? They weren't even around back when Lincoln and Washington took over the country from the British. They just had muskets. These banned assualt weapons are good for killing just one thing - men, women and children. Especially children. Mr. Congressman, Did you know that more people die from heart attacks than from anything else? But we can't ban heart attacks so why not band the next best thing? At least SOME people will live!! And thats better than nothing right? These guns are meant for nothing but killing people - so we should stop them before they kill any more. Thirdly, no one hunts ducks with an AK47 big gun - they'd kill them! They use a shotgun (which is NOT an assualt weapon). The shotgun just knocks the ducks out of the air so the dogs can get them. In closing. In England they don't have the same murder rate we have because the King got rid of all their guns. It's high time we became a CIVILIZED society where no one needs guns anymore. Please, these guns are meant for killing and scaring people and for dealing drugs. No one needs an AK47 to hunt ducks. The End. Signed, Sincerely, A concerned citizen.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 9:30:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2003 9:33:18 PM EDT by okrobocop]
That has got to be a joke OM. It sounds like something John Belushi would have said in "1941". If it is not a joke, then I truly hope that one day soon Ann Coulter walks up to you, smiles real sexily, and punctures your nutsack with a well placed kick from an 8" stiletto heel. I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 10:09:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OmegaMan: Dear Mr. Congressman, I'm in favor of the Band Against Assualt Weapons. I want to know what you think and what you're going to vote. Signed, Sincerely, A concerned citizen.
View Quote
I too am in favor of a "Assault Weapon Band." How fucking cool would that be? We could be like a "Garage Assault Weapon Band." You know guitars, drums and AK 47s in case any suck ass long hair hippie bands try and give us any shit. Axl Rose thinks he's bad ass for breaking wiskey bottles over peoples head? Wait till I light his homo ass up from 150m with a belt fed HK21. This is the greatest fucking idea ever. We could open for Kid Rock. [bounce] And as artists, the fucking liberals would HAVE to care about our artistic freedom and unique means of expression.
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 10:54:11 PM EDT
I'LL PUT MINE IN....And you can give me a key chain.. Dear Sir, Make the fastest, coolest, toughest, most deadly, fully automatitic weapons avaliable to everyone....for one reason....Bill and Hillary Clinton are COMMUNIST HOMO'S,....The end And as always,have a nice day....asshole
Link Posted: 3/6/2003 10:55:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By OmegaMan: Dear Mr. Congressman, I'm in favor of the Band Against Assualt Weapons. I want to know what you think and what you're going to vote. Signed, Sincerely, A concerned citizen.
View Quote
I too am in favor of a "Assault Weapon Band." How fucking cool would that be? We could be like a "Garage Assault Weapon Band." You know guitars, drums and AK 47s in case any suck ass long hair hippie bands try and give us any shit. Axl Rose thinks he's bad ass for breaking wiskey bottles over peoples head? Wait till I light his homo ass up from 150m with a belt fed HK21. This is the greatest fucking idea ever. We could open for Kid Rock. [bounce] And as artists, the fucking liberals would HAVE to care about our artistic freedom and unique means of expression.
View Quote
[ROFL2] USPC40 [img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=476[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]
Link Posted: 3/7/2003 5:47:24 AM EDT
Guy's remember the more brief and to the point your letter is the more likely it is to be read and remembered instead of being put in the circular file. SorryOciffer
Link Posted: 3/7/2003 6:10:19 AM EDT
A potential member of the "Garage Assault Weapons Band" [img]http://images.andale.com/f2/112/111/7410906/1047048999905_gun_guitar.jpg[/img] Sorry no entry for contest, Im not a very talented writer...had to borrow from others here...
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 5:48:53 PM EDT
With the AW stuff in the headlines it's time to bump this topic. I think it is clear The Macallan wins, probably by default. Anyway for his letter righting skills he has earned one complete deck of authentic CENTCOM Iraqi Death Cards. These are not repros but the real thing from the same run delivered to the US Embassy on 4-18-03. I'll drop them in with your FAL so make sure your FFL don't pocket them. [;)]
Top Top