POLITICS -What did this politician say? Help draft response.

[Tycer]

Quote:

Dear Tycer,

Thank you for contacting be about gun legislation and the right to bear arms. I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on this important matter.

I believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution is of great importance and that the Second Amendment fight to bear arms is a fundamental right of law-abiding citizens. I do not believe the federal government, or any state government should impede certain individual freedoms that are reserved for the people by our Constitution.

On April 26, 2007, Senator Frank Lautenberg ( D-NJ ) introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007 (S. 1237). This legislation would allow the Attorney General to deny the issuance of firearms licenses to individuals whom the Attorney General "suspects" have been engaged in terrorist activities. Under this legislation, to license deny a firearm license, the Attorney general must simply have a belief that such and individual may use a firearm in connection with terrorist activities,

Like most Americans, I firmly believe the first priority of our government is to protect our homeland and its citizens from harm, and keeping the firearms out of the hands of terrorists is necessary to do so. I certainly agree with the intent of the legislation. However, I am concerned that S. 1237, as now written, would actually also apply to law-abiding citizens who are not terrorists and who should be able to legally own a firearm. The legislation also does not ensure individuals deemed as "suspected" terrorists are further investigated or detained. It does not make sense to deny a suspected terrorist a gun license but then just let that suspected terrorist go.

On June 11, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy ( D-NY) introduced the NICS Improvement Act (H.R. 2640). The NICS program was established in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady bill") and is used to screen would-be gun buyers for mental problems and criminal convictions and prohibit them from purchasing guns. H.R. 2640 originally included gun control regulations that would have allowed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and state courts to take away gun rights from those veterans who had trouble managing their personal finances or who were in a temporary coma and were fully healed. Due to these concerns, H.R. 2640 was changed and will enable the BATFE to re-draft the regulations to ensure that only those who might be a danger to themselves or others are included in the NICS database. H.R. 2640 was signed into law on January 8, 2008. This law will prevent the wrongful inclusion of law-abiding veterans from the NICS database and ensure that when a veteran or any person recovers from a temporary coma, their Second Amendment rights will be automatically restored and they will be notified.

I believe it is vital to protect all citizens from dangerous individuals who unlawfully obtain guns. I also believe that the federal government should respect the freedoms and liberties we have cherished since the founding of our country.

Thanks you for contacting me about the right to bear arms. If you have any further questions or need any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://burr.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Richard Burr
United States Senator

RB:tjo

End Quote

[deerwhacker444]

Looks like a form letter he probably sends to everyone. Full of Fluff. It says this and that but nowhere does HE say "I will do this" or "I will do that".

Cow Chip

[J Miller]

Bull Chips, he wrote a whole page of stuff and didn't say anything worth reading.

Cow Chip

Joe

[HORACE]

This senator's prolix reply is a circumloquitous way of saying sweet FA.

[Jayhawker]

He's full of it. If it's a right, then why would you need a license to exercise it? And whose definition of a terrorist will we use today? Whose definition of harm to self or others and by what process? Too many loose ends, too many possible interpretations. I get the impression that he believes in the intent of both pieces of legislation and that should tell you everything you need to know about the man.

[FWiedner]

He says that the Lautenberg legislation gives an unelected bureaucrat the authority to finger American citizens, call them "suspected" terrorists, and relieve them of their rights. He further states that the only part he disagrees with is not putting "suspects" in prison.

He goes on to mention that under the recently passed HR2640, that those U.S. veterans who are stripped of their rights due to their poor choice to lapse into coma might have those rights restored when the BATFE has the time.

He mentions that scared and frightened citizens should be protected from scary and frightening citizens, and that the government cares.

Thanks for writing, write again, bluh, bluh, bluh...

Love, Ray

[JReed]

Fine example of the Potomac Two Step.

[Blaine]

I read (seriously) that the EFer will run off with your guns in a heart beat.......I get the same letter from our two Female Senators in WA State..........

[Tycer]

So help me draft a reply. I'm not sure how to respond - so many points missed - no stand taken.

[Blaine]

So help me draft a reply. I'm not sure how to respond - so many points missed - no stand taken.

The Honorable Blah, Blah,

I appreciate your response, but found it to be unsatisfactory. Clearly, you do not suscribe to the notion that the Second Amendment means exactly what is says. Shall not be infringed is a powerful statement and not one to dally around with. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were intended by the founding fathers to be individual rights, given to us by our Creator, not concocted in the halls of your august chambers. This fact can be found dozens of times over in the Federalist Papers, should you care to brush up on constitutional history. I would close with a few words by Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

[Hobie]

No committment to any course of action. Cow chips.

[Leverdude]

No committment to any course of action. Cow chips.

Bout it. I read it as his heads stuck up a orifice on the wrong end of his body & its been there so long that when he talks only stuff comes out.
He cant, or you werent important enough for him to even spell check.


Burr said;

I believe it is vital to protect all citizens from dangerous individuals who unlawfully obtain guns. I also believe that the federal government should respect the freedoms and liberties we have cherished since the founding of our country.

You could just send that quote back asking for legislation keeping them violent folks off the streets instead of infringing these rights he says he believes the Gov't he's a part of ought to respect.

[Jeeps]

I believe it is vital to protect all citizens from dangerous individuals who unlawfully obtain guns.

Then stop making it harder for citizens to arm themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I am only speaking for myself, but I would rather the community keep an eye
on the convicted felon who has paid his debt to society who owns a shotgun, than to worry about who in
our community will be put on a list of "not trusted with a firearm".

I know we would rather not see him have a weapon, but remember he could
get one no problem illegally.

If the current trend keeps up, the only way YOU will be able to own a firearm
is "ILLEGALLY".

You are being regulated into a box, don't ever forget that.

[Scott64A]

Cow chips...

Here is how your own form letter should read:

"Dear assistant to Senator So and So,

By recieving a form letter from the Senator's office, I automatically know two things:

1) The Senator cares so little about the opinions of his/her constituents that he/she is satisfied to have an automatica reply with an 'insert important topic here' filter simply regurgitate the postion du jour.

2) The Senator's position on this issue in wishy-washy at best, and entirely too flimsy for any 2nd ammendment advocate to stomach. While initially appearing to come out in opposition of S. 1237, the view expressed here is that it is OK to pass a damning law, so long as the restoration of people's rights is in someone else's court, (BATFE). This means what to me? There is another portion which further muddies the water where someone somewhere will be the ultimate decider on who is and who is not a terrorist. Not a job best left to a beaurocrat.
Also, the Senator's dogdy position on HR2640 perpetuates the "the ball is in someone else's court" ideology. The ball is in YOUR court. I asked YOU what YOU would do, not who you're going to pin it on when the votes dry up as a result of your inability to stand for something.

I'll be considering your opponent in the next election; you had better solidify your non-stance on the 2nd ammendment.

Maybe not a form letter next time.


Sincerely,
John Q. Taxpayer

[Blaine]

When seconds count, The Police are minutes away........