[Nightfall]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=353252

Soooo... has any politician ever given a straight forward and concise answer? :rolleyes:

[Kharn]

Thats the oddest looking signature I've ever seen, and thats before considering the smeared ink. I thought my signature looked nothing like my name when printed...

Kharn

[HBK]

No. Every time I write my congress people, they tell me if they agree with me and just write a bunch of mumbo jumbo if they don't, always concluding with the empty promise of taking my views into consideration if the issue comes to a vote.

[geekWithA.45]

Yeah, my state rep said he wouldn't vote yes on smart guns, and he abstained, true to his word. (Of course, he coulda voten no, damnit)

That letter is a weasel response, plain and simple. I'm absolutely certain he'll be thinking of the scary, scary gun nuts as he casts his votes

[themic]

i wrote to george allen (Senator, R-VA)on the AWB. He responded with a straight up, "I will NOT support it" in his letter.

[rock jock]

Yeah, every politician is a weasel. Oh, and every gunowner is a nut, too. :rolleyes:

I don't know this rep, but I do know that there are some issues that even wel-intentioned politicos with good characters and strong convictions haven't made up their minds on. It could be that he is genuinely undecided on this. That could be for several reasons: 1) he is uneducated on the Constitutional basis for allowing citizens to own military-type weapons, 2) he is uneducated about the specifics of the AWB and why it was ineffective on crime, 3) he is waiting to see how his constituents feel about the issue. Of course, he could be giving you the brush-off or is waiting to see what kind of deals he can make on other legislation if he sells his vote on this one. I would wait until any pending re-authorization bills get closer to seeing some sunlight and then write again, this time maybe including a petition with signatures of friends (that are also constituents) as well as a brief synopsis as to why the AWB was wrong from a Constitutional as well as a crime-prevention perspective.

From the smear, it appears as though he sihned the letter himself, rather than some 18 yo aide using an electronic signature. Don't give up yet.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm fully of the opinion that Frank Wolf and Tom Davis (who represents me) aren't actually Republicans the way they claim they are and the way they run.

I really think they're conservative Democrats. Problem is, in Northern Virginia, I really think that's about as good as we can hope to get for Congresscritters.

At least Davis is a great step up from that :cuss: ing :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: Leslie Byrne.

[Partisan Ranger]

Problem with Wolf is that a large chunk of his district is in Northern VA, where a lot of nannystate wussjobs who work in the District live.

[Poodleshooter]

HAHA- I have Virgil Goode as my representative :)
It's good to have a decent 2nd amendment supporting House rep. It's too bad that my VA GA reps are so anti-gun. Fortunately, those views are ignored at the state level. :)

[Mike Irwin]

Rot in hell, Poodle!

The Hon. Mr. Goode is the ONLY Democrat for whom I would have voted.

Now that he's an independent, I'd have even less trouble supporting him.

[Mark Tyson]

That's not a signature, that's a mobius strip!

[glocksman]

I may not agree with him on every issue, but my Congressman is about as progun as they come.

Rep. Hostettler's position on the 2nd Amendment. (http://www.house.gov/hostettler/Issues/Hostettler-issues-1998-09-23-2nd-amendment.htm)

While the foregoing would be sufficient reason to refrain from legislating restrictions on firearm ownership, I must add that I believe the authors of the Bill of Rights were wise in preserving the right to keep and bear arms. The ability to defend oneself and family is the fundamental right which preserves all others. The authors of Indiana's Constitution in 1851 agreed, as evident by their including Article I, Section 32, which reads: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

Indiana 8th district.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Guys, Wolf is at the very least a political opportunist.

The Tiarht Amendment that requires NICS destroy all records of lawful approved purchases within 24 hours also had portions that removed many of the Clinton era restrictions on FFLs (such as requiring a storefront).

Instead, Rep. Wolf was a key man responsible for stripping those provisions out in committee and leaving us with just the NICS protection.

[Sam Adams]

Bart got it right about Wolf. That guy is singlehandedly responsible for costing lots of gunowners lots of money, since FFLs get lots of discounts from wholesalers of guns, ammo and accessories. I never was an FFL, but I'd jump at the chance to be one if it would save me some money on my habit (which, of course, would all promptly be used to buy more, which is kind of the point).

I wish that I was in Wolf's district, just so I could vote against the sumbitch. All he had to do was NOTHING, and the FFL rider would've passed, but NOOOOOOO...he had to take an active role in screwing gun owners throughout the nation.

That all being said, I object to the notion of even needing an FFL to buy a gun directly from the manufacturer or distributor - no one needed one prior to 1968, and I don't see why I should have any fewer rights than those who happened to be adults before the odious '68 GCA became law (or, for that matter, the '34 NFA).

Wolf needs to be promoted to the private sector.

[Ryan1021]

I have written to both of my Senators from Ohio, Voinovich and DeWine. DeWine is for the a renewal and Voinovich just jumped around the issue. :rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

Fire your elected misrepresentive for being spineless and wimpy.