[chaim]

My congressman, Eliajah E. Cummings is one of the sponsors of H.R. 2038 the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003". You know, the REALLY bad one that would even ban M1 Carbines and Mini-14s.

Basically I informed him that I was a conservative Democrat who in the past has often spent his time and money on candidates who he supports. I also pointed out that we have met in the past. I then informed him that because of his sponsorship and support of this bill my money and volunteer efforts will be in behalf of his opponents, first in the primaries and then in the general election if he makes it out of the primaries (not that I would have supported him before anyway, I am a conservative Democrat, but I didn't tell him that in the letter). I had some stuff in there about "assult weapons" not being used in crime, the "Assult Weapon's Ban" having no measurable effect on crime, that we (gun owners) aren't all the ignorant "rednecks" he seems to think we are, that we are active in our communities and politically, that the only difference between so called assult weapons and other semi-automatic weapons are cosmetic, that so called assult weapons sometimes make the most effective HD weapons (i.e. .223 carbines) and thus this law could make many people less safe, etc.

Well, here is some of his reply (the most annoying part that is full of lies and misleading statements):


...After careful consideration, it is my belief that we should not enact measures into law that would increase the ease with which guns can enter our homes. I therefore have reservations about allowing any types of firearms, though primarily assault weapons, into our homes. Gun-related crime has been on the decline in the years following the enactment of the Brady Bill and I believe it would be unwise for us to change the nature of the boundaries it established at this juncture. The primary purpose of H.R. 2038 is to keep dangerous weapons out of our children's hands and out of the hands of those who could easily obtain them on the street for use against our law enforcement...

Man, I don't even know where to start this is so bad.

At least he admits to his real agenda here, he doesn't want gun ownership to be easier, and in fact has "reservations" about ANY TYPES of firearms being allowed into our homes. However, he implies that the prior laws have made us safer (they haven't), and through the last quoted sentence that there is a problem with "assult weapons" getting into the hands of children or being used in crime, against LE, etc.

I have NO idea where to start, or even if I should waste my time responding to him (despite having met, and him possibly recognizing my name especially after reminding him in my letter where and when we met, I got a mostly boilerplate letter, likely written by an aide, and signed with his signature by a computer).

He ignored most of my points, he repeats the same lies that I tried to cut off at the pass by doing some research, and citing sources, showing that the "Assult Weapons Ban" has NO effect on crime. I showed how this law won't make people safer, will make many less safe, and I pointed out that his bill IS NOT just a continuation of the prior law (something he conveniently ignored). Hmmm.

[alan]

Chiam:

IMO, the only person worth debating, discussing or talking with is one whose mind is open to differing views.

Your congress critter obviously fails this test, leading me to ask "why bother", unless you happen to enjoy hitting your head against a wall, or if you believe that you might make an impression of some sort on the particular individual, not a lilkely expectation, I imagine.

By all means, suit yourself though.

[geekWithA.45]

When it comes to elected advocates of civilian disarmament, two things come to mind:

1) Write them anyway, as they keep count, and if we just write them off as hopeless and not close the feedback loop, they'll get a distorted view of the numbers

2) Keep it short, sweet and to the point. I am X, concerned about Y, because Z. This will prevent you from wasting your time casting pearls before swine, while at the same time providing some context for your displeasure. In the unlikely event that a candidate realizes that they're out of synch with their public, they'll need a reason/justification for their switch.

[Mark Tyson]

Allowing these weapons to enter people's homes?

Oh, man. If any assault weapons come knocking on my door I'll gladly invite them in! LOL

On a serious note, ahem, the decline in crime started before the Brady Bull or the Assinine Weapons Ban.

Crime is such a dynamic, fluid phenomenon that its rise and fall cannot be attributed to a law that affects so few of the guns actually used in crime.

[AZTOY]

Well we all know John McCain is a waste of time.

But i keep sending letters to him, Just to be annoying.:evil::neener::neener:

[Old Fuff]

The best thing too do is to make copies of his letter, and hand them out to you're fellow shooters. In other words - pass the word. This won't make a big difference, but it will give him something too worry about. Obviously he thinks gun control is a winning issue in his district. If he gets enough mail that says otherwise he may, or may not have second thoughts.

Sure is nice to know we still have CONSERVATIVE Democrats ....

[Waitone]

Dear Representative // Senator Stuffed Silk Shirt,

Thank you for your response to my letter expressing my concern over gun legislation. Your response indicates a fundamental disagreement with me in the area of the right to self-defense. Legislation which you evidently support will effectively end the right of citizens and others to defend themselves against murderous intent.

To further clarify you position, please answer the following series of questons
--Do you now or have you ever carried a concealed weapon, legally or illegally?
--Do you now or have you ever worked in a facility with an active security force featuring the skilled use of firearms either handguns or rifles?
--Do you now or have you ever employed for your private use via either your private funds or publically available funds an armed security guard?
--Do you have a loaded firearm(s) in your office complex?
--Does any of your staff either in Washington or district offices have as part of their duties the mandate to carry a firearm?

Your specific response to these questions is requested and expected.

Regards,

Ima Doofus Taxpayer
Your Boss

[number6]

Has anyone noticed how the Anti Gunners repeat the same sentence every time there is a press conference? ---- "We need to keep guns out of our children's hands." Think about that! What they are actually saying and brainwashing the mindless is "eventually no child will have any experience with guns if we succeed with keeping guns out of their hands, and then who will really protest our assinine gun laws, because nobody will be gun enthusiests!

I think that is we, the gun owner's number one concern, that our children are growing up NEVER experiencing rabbit hunting on a chilly day with dad and gramps in a farmer's field, and afterwards cleaning the rabbits and guns and bonding with family. Or, pheasant hunting, elk, goose, or any tye of hunt. And let's not forget the range either. How many young boys are there that thumb through a magazine looking at the latest .22 rifle, 20 gauge shotgun, etc. and looking forward to the next issue?

We are a dying breed fellas. Something needs to be done!!!

[Standing Wolf]

I therefore have reservations about allowing any types of firearms, though primarily assault weapons, into our homes.

That's what happens when you vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party: you get anti-Second Amendment bigots.

[BowStreetRunner]

number 6,
we are a dyin breed, so get going!
make some more of us!
BSR

[Thumper]

Waitone,

Nice. :D

[Baba Louie]

chaim,

Don't you love it when a man you helped put in office blatantly defies the oath of office he took?

Time to hit the old democratic primary campaign trail and find a real man or woman who knows and respects the Constitution and work your rear end off for that persons election... only to find he/she joining the D.C herd and beginning to hum the mantra, "Guns are bad... for the children..." once they get into office.

Must be something in the water in the Capitol complex...

Even John McCain got weird and Mr. Ashcroft; a man I do respect, from my old home state... going off the other end of the spectrum.

What was it C.R. Sam said in another thread?

Power

Sums it up.

Adios

[MJRW]

I've got an odd thought. If this is causing you to not want to vote for them, inform the person. Simple letter:

"Dear Senator Palpatine,

Because of your stance on X, I will now vote for anyone but you unless you alter your stance on X. You don't represent my views. Thank you, enjoy retirement."

[Leatherneck]

What MJRW said.
Don't waste any more energy on him; find a candidate you can support (good luck on that: Democrats, Maryland, etc.) and spend your time, effort and money getting him or her elected.

TC
TFL Survivor

[sw442642]

He didn't read the letter. A staffer sent you the form letter used for gun nuts. Sorry, but that's the way it works. I know this discourages people from good efforts but once someone sends a response which indicates they have no knowledge of the facts and are parroting the general party position (Clinton on Brady), then you know that only an electoral defeat has impact.

GWB is quite the same. His support of the AWB flies in the face of all evidence. Do you think the man has actually read one technical book on firearms issues or just mouths cliches?

[alan]

Standing Wolf wrote:

"That's what happens when you vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party: you get anti-Second Amendment bigots".

During every congress where any form of gun control legislation was enacted, it's passage was attained with the votes of the members, which include both Democrats as well as Republicans, as you well know.

Unfortunately, Republicans, are not all that strong on protecting individual rights, the right to arms being one of the above, while not every Democrat is your typical, foaming at the mouth anti-gunner.

Remember, if you will, that we gun owners have been beaten about the head and shoulders with generalities, and generalities are not always correct.

[chaim]

Don't you love it when a man you helped put in office blatantly defies the oath of office he took? I never did anything to help this guy come to office. Until recently we had a different, far better, congressman. A few years ago the state redistricted this guy into my district. Makes no sense, a small corner of my upper middle class, highly educated county was redistricted. We were represented by a Representative who was representative of my part of the district and the rest of his district was simlar and the change now has us represented by a far left-wing inner city representative who's district, other than us and a small strip between his old district and us, is nothing like my area- very urban, very poor, not very educated. We also have no real say anymore since we are so different from the rest of his district we don't vote the same as them and we are hugely outnumbered (last MD redistricting many areas were changed like this to weaken conservative and moderate middle class suburban areas' say and to politically strengthen far left-wing poor urban voters).

This guy is to the left of Karl Marx and he is a racist (anti-white and anti-semetic) and I am a white, Jewish, conservative Democrat. I've never voted for him, I've never worked on his campaign and I've never helped him raise money (when we met it was at a party event, not one of his campaign events).

[jimpeel]

Has anyone noticed how the Anti Gunners repeat the same sentence every time there is a press conference? ---- "We need to keep guns out of our children's hands." Think about that! What they are actually saying and brainwashing the mindless is "eventually no child will have any experience with guns if we succeed with keeping guns out of their hands, and then who will really protest our assinine gun laws, because nobody will be gun enthusiests! What they are saying is that they are content with the Second Amendment having an age limit upon which a person is not a citizen until they reach a certain age. The Second Amendment is the only Amendment that is so deemed.

A child is not immune from the protections under the Fourth Amendment due to age; so why are they not so protected under the Second Amendment? Here is a case in point:

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
CALABRETTA v FLOYD
9715385
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9715385.html

[Skunkabilly]

8/20/03

Dear Congresscritter,

You know how people used to say 'It's a free country'? Why don't people say that anymore?

Your constituency,

Skunk

[alan]

Chaim:

Don't you just love Maryland politics?

[3vil_J3st3r]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought politicians were put here to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

I find it amusing how they get some wild hair up their asses and then proceed to dictate to us what is good or bad..
regardless of what we have to say about it.

They make it their own personal crusade regardless of what the polls or voters say..
it really gets on my nerves.

[greyhound]

Last time I saw this clown he was complaining in an interview that President Bush wasn't taking Congressmen with him on his trip to Africa (which would be paid for in tax$$$, naturally).

[PrudentGT]

Jimpeel -- that's a pretty interesting case. At least the 9th gets it right on rare occasions. The only thing that bothered me was the immunity from civil action for government agents unless 'a reasonable person would know' that they're in the wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you work for the government...