Had Enough

[Dirtybird1980 6]

Indeed they do, but seeing as they represent the population, if the majority of your Congress members support it, then they support it on behalf of the majority. If the majority oppose it then they represent a majority that oppose it.

 

 

to the contrary, if 51% of the US Populous say leave the laws the way they are, then Congress SHOULD vote based solely on what THE POPULOUS wants, .... HOWEVER... what Congress wants, Congress gets. Congress has generally had the mentality of "We know what is best, and they will either like it or not, we make the laws. They will either abide or break them, and those that don't like what we decide will go to jail. Oh well. I still sleep just fine at night." If 51% of congress oppose owning guns, even though 51% of populous says we want guns.... guess what... WE LOOSE OUR GUNS ALL BECAUSE A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS DON'T WANT US TO HAVE THEM. It does not matter what the Population of the US decides, its whatever the guys behind the big oak desks want, and they get it, and we can't do a dang thing until the next election and by then, the population either doesn't care or we forgot what it was we were supposed to be fighting for because those same bureaucrats screwed us over in 10 other areas by then.

[LHookins 3,103]

A few words of advice.

 

First of all, if you're writing a letter to a Congressperson, address it to them by name and official title. It makes it look less like it's something you found online.

 

Second, in all probability the Congressperson will not ever see the letter. They have a staff to sort through the mail. They have to sort through a LOT of mail.

 

Third, state your position early, and in a reasonable manner. A rant will not be popular with the people who have to read it. If it's not written carefully, a rant might even be taken as a threat and forwarded to the necessary authorities.

 

Fourth, the opinions in the letters are aggregated. that means they'll probably sort them into 6 categories: Neutral, moderate for or against, extreme for or against, and total nutjobs. The Congressperson will only get the first five numbers. The sixth will be posted on a bulletin board to be laughed at if you're lucky, or forwarded to authorities for processing if you're not. Only the most eloquent will ever get to the Congressperson's desk. The OP's letter is not among these.

 

Remember, the Congressperson is first and foremost a *person*. Write as if you're writing to your parents. Keep it positive. Imagine being the staffer who has to read it; make their jobs easier and more pleasant.

 

And good luck.

 

Hook

[Airbus Commander 563]

to the contrary, if 51% of the US Populous say leave the laws the way they are, then Congress SHOULD vote based solely on what THE POPULOUS wants, .... HOWEVER... what Congress wants, Congress gets. Congress has generally had the mentality of "We know what is best, and they will either like it or not, we make the laws. They will either abide or break them, and those that don't like what we decide will go to jail. Oh well. I still sleep just fine at night." If 51% of congress oppose owning guns, even though 51% of populous says we want guns.... guess what... WE LOOSE OUR GUNS ALL BECAUSE A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS DON'T WANT US TO HAVE THEM. It does not matter what the Population of the US decides, its whatever the guys behind the big oak desks want, and they get it, and we can't do a dang thing until the next election and by then, the population either doesn't care or we forgot what it was we were supposed to be fighting for because those same bureaucrats screwed us over in 10 other areas by then.

But how do you tell if the population is for or against the controls? If you vote for them you let them represent you, if they don't represent you then give another person or party your vote. This is what I'm saying about the disconnect between people and their politicians. You choose them, they are there to give opinions on your behalf, or at least on behalf of the majority that voted for them. If they decide that's the way it should be, then that's what it will be because they were put there by the majority.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[Fatback 84]

<br />to the contrary, if 51% of the US Populous say leave the laws the way they are, then Congress SHOULD vote based solely on what THE POPULOUS wants<br />

 

This not true. An elected official should vote his conscience, otherwise you have the "tyranny of the majority." John Adams recognized this danger. Majority rule could be used to tyrannize and exploit minority groups. Politicians should stand their ground and vote what they think is right in the face of public opinion, which can be fickle. If the majority of the population is still not happy after a "cooling down" period they replace the politician in the next election. Public opinion can vacillate depending on how emotional and issue is and you can't run a country that way.

[laserit 93]

I am niether for nor against guns and I want society to be as free as possible. I think the bigger debate is why is society devolving into such a lowly state and what can be done to reverse the trend. It is only a matter of time before some sick person wants to one up the last sick person. IMHO shooting to death 20 elementry aged school children goes much deeper then a mental illness.

[coa1117 53]

Any modification against the Constitution is a direct attack against our country.

 

There is a Constitutional mechanism for modifying the Constitution: it's called Amendments. It's been done 27 times since 1891. What I would like to see is an amendment that more clearly defines "gun rights" in the 21st century, given the absolute mess we find ourselves in -- 300 million guns and 11,000 gun deaths per year.

 

Much of the paralysis in the current debate is being driven by the paranoid fringe that spews complete and utter nonsense about our government (read "President Obama") and others (read "The United Nations") having a secret agenda to confiscate their guns and turn America into a totalitarian state. They argue that they need their guns for protection in such a scenario, and that a ban on semiautomatic rifles with enormous cartridges would cripple their ability to defend themselves against the government's arsenal. The inevitable extension of this deluded thinking is that this wacko crowd should also be allowed possession of RPGs, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, tanks and nuclear submarines because how on earth could they defend their freedom without fire-power on par with our military?

 

A discussion of common sense solutions to our massive gun problem is simply not possible with these people. The latest polls show that by far a majority of Americans want significantly more limits on who should be able to own guns and the kinds of guns allowed. As such I think the best course of action would be for the rest of us to begin the process of re-defining what we are willing to accept and not accept related to the presence and purpose of guns in our modern society. If this requires a Constitutional amendment, if the best path forward is an outright retroactive ban on military style assault weapons, so be it. It's time for a return to sanity.

[Airbus Commander 563]

*Snip*

Best post of the topic so far.

[razorhog703 15]

First of all, if you're writing a letter to a Congressperson, address it to them by name and official title. It makes it look less like it's something you found online.

 

I agree. I am in fact sending this letter to every Virginia Congressman, by name. The post does not contain the personnal letter that I sent to every person. I plan on sending these letters every week, so although they may not see it initally, the chances they see it will be high. Thanks for the advice for the future though.

[JohnFromCO 15]

I normally attempt to maintain bar rules, no politics or religion, when posting on forums but this topic does intrigue me.

 

To preface my comments, I am a former US Marine, current gun owner and father to a beautiful little girl.

 

It has been proved by the US Supreme Court the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people the personal right to own arms for individual use or in a militia. The primary reason was to avoid an out of control government resulting in tyranny against the people. It was designed as a preventative measure along with a right to own arms. If people have the ability to fight, regardless of being overpowered, tyranny is less likely. It was not designed to limits rights only for hunting.

 

Do I think tyranny will occur no but that was why the 2nd was created.

 

Many anti-gun advocates have mentioned that our forefathers never intended the 2nd to cover semi-automatic weapons or those with detachable magazines. This cannot be proven since members of the Congress who made the 2nd are long gone. Their statements of allowing the people to defend themselves from tyranny do exist. They did however recognize the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a living document that will protect people of the United States as the times change. It changes with the people. That is also why specific weapons are not listed. Congress has seen weapons change over the last 220 years including many changes within the first 50 years after the 2nd was drafted in 1791 yet the 2nd was never amended to only include gunsmith made single shot muzzle loaders. If that was the first intent of the first Congress wouldn't they have re-worded the people right?

 

Revolvers (1835), percussion caps, breachloading (1810), interchangeable parts (1798), and mass produced weapons (1798) all occurred within the first 50 years of the 2nd. In fact the Puckle gun which could fire 63 rounds in 7 minutes by using an 11 round cylinder magazine was invented in 1718. So to think Congress didn't realize weapons would change drastically doesn't make sense. After all the amendment was not repealed or amended in the last 220+ years by 112 different Congresses. Congress has understood it is an important right of the people.

 

With regard to modern military looking semi-automatic rifles, I won't call them "Assault Rifles" since that is a incorrect definition, they are designed to send 1 round per one trigger pull. Many anti-gun advocates have stated they have no use which is obviously incorrect. Whether the use is varmint hunting or shooting paper if that is what the purchaser wants to use them for then that is an appropriate use. The AR platform for example is a perfect platform for feral hog removal. I think a Ferrari or raised 1 ton quad cab pickup in a city has no usefulness but the owner would beg to differ. Is the AR a dangerous platform capable of delivering mass casualties if used incorrectly, it is, but then again so is diesel gasoline and fertilizer or an aircraft. Are 30 round magazines needed? Again it goes back to the lawful owner, if they find lawful usefulness in the magazines then obviously that person has a need. The only difference between a 20 or 30 round mag and 10 round mag is 2-3 seconds to reload. IMHO 100 round mags are a complete waste and not useful one bit. They only lead to jamming and horrible accuracy but others might disagree.

 

The problem isn't semi-automatic rifles or 30 round magazines. A ban on military style rifles and magazines won't stop gun deaths. Columbine proved this fact. The US has a problem with how people purchase weapons and a huge sociological issues. We do need a mandate how weapons are acquired across the board. Background checks for all purchases regardless of from a dealer or P2P should be mandatory. One of the best measures I read was a Federal license to purchase, own, or possess guns and ammo. Without the license you can't purchase anything. Mental health record checks should also be allowed. Sorry but if you want to purchase a weapon you lose the right to mental health record privacy. At one point the now almost fanatical NRA pushed for background checks involving mental health but the ACLU shut it down. All of the mass shooters had some sort of mental issues. We as a country need to examine how we handle people with mental defects and ensure they get proper treatment.

 

We also as a country need to examine how our society has allowed an embrace of violence and thug life. Rather than working hard for what you need there is a portion of our society that will just use violence to obtain it. These individuals make up a majority of the crime and gun murders. A large majority of the murders don't even use semi-auto rifles. Bans, background checks, small mags wont stop these weapons from committing murders in inner cities. Ending the thug lifestyle is the only way to stop murders but I can't fathom any way to do this.

 

The answer to gun control isn't easy but as I said above bans have never been proven to work and appear misguided by the uninformed politicians who design them. A pistol grip, collapsible stock, or bayonet lug does not change the rate of fire or deadliness of the weapon. A Mossberg 500 is just as deadly as a Mossberg 500 tactical. A post ban compliant AR still shoots 1 round with every pull. The same as a Remington 750 hunting rifle.

 

IMO the answer is limiting how people acquire weapons through background checks (incl health) and licensing along with stiff penalties for those who break gun laws. If you illegally possess a weapon then go directly to jail without a chance to plea. This is the only way to attempt to limit guns and criminal acts with guns without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun ownership is a responsibility and tragedies occur when you violate that responsibility.

[Fatback 84]

<br />Any modification against the Constitution is a direct attack against our country.<br />

 

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery because times and values had changed. Where would we be if there was no amendment process? So amending the Constitution itself is a non-issue. It has been done before and will be done again. The pro-gun lobby uses this as an excuse to end debate on the issue before it gets started by saying regardless of the reasons it simply can't be done because it is a constitutional right. The issue needs to be discussed in a calm rational way and then amend the constitution if need be.

[ray hughes 165]

I once worked in the LBPD - California. Ask any US cop about the US gun laws. I can tell you where most stand on the issue. Fact is, they are putting their lives on the line against people wielding high powered automatics -for crying out loud - this isn't a war zone, but going up against heavily armed citizens, it just might as well be. The US Constitution isn't hard cement - naming milita as a right to bear arms could be construed as arming a group of revolutionaries. What in gods name are people so afraid of? Losing their so called liberty? I say you have already lost it to multi national corporations and the wealthy select few. People who choose to kill using these weapons are labelled psychotic - yet who sold them the weapons in the first instance? - and what was the prime motiviation? I'll tell you - making money.

 

I left the US knowing full well that the gun laws need badly tweaking - and as for the founding fathers - I think they just might agree that the constitution needs an "adjustment". As for the NRA - I listen to their sound bites and their advertising and frankly their justifications are seriously misplaced.

[razorhog703 15]

There is a Constitutional mechanism for modifying the Constitution: it's called Amendments. It's been done 27 times since 1891.

 

You are correct. That line I need to revise in my next letter to better define what should be done. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Gun ownership is a responsibility and tragedies occur when you violate that responsibility.

 

However... the two semiautomatic pistols and .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle Lanza used in the shooting were registered to his mother. No regulation could have prevented this.

 

I did very much enjoy your post and agree with it.

[kama2004 74]

What about the beginning of the amendment? A well regulated milicia? The freedom for anybody to own any type of arm doesnt fit in the constitution logic. There is the concept of an organisation right at the beginning.

 

Pierre

 

 

[razorhog703 15]

What I would like to see is an amendment that more clearly defines "gun rights" in the 21st century, given the absolute mess we find ourselves in -- 300 million guns and 11,000 gun deaths per year.

 

Allow me to clarify your post... In 2010, drunken drivers killed 13,000 people. According to the CDC there were 10,400 firearm homicides in our country. Reviewing the statistics, we find that the majority of these gun-related deaths were criminal on criminal violence or justified police shootings, not innocent people killed as is the case of a death by a DUI.

 

Interesting, huh?

[Airbus Commander 563]

Allow me to clarify your post... In 2010, drunken drivers killed 13,000 people. According to the CDC there were 10,400 firearm homicides in our country. Reviewing the statistics, we find that the majority of these gun-related deaths were criminal on criminal violence or justified police shootings, not innocent people killed as is the case of a death by a DUI.

 

Interesting, huh?

That just says that your drunk driving laws are not enforced well enough. It doesn't justify people being killed by firearm.