Senator Durbin's response to my email


PDA






jasper275
February 3, 2009, 09:42 PM
Here's his response. Help me with a reply!

Note how he suggests that gun ownership or restriction is about protecting law enforcement and not a RIGHT of every citizen.

Note the use of "common sense restrictions."

Who are these law enforcement agencies that love the Brady Law and AWB bans?

And notice the only use for guns being hunting or sporting but NOT self-defense.

February 3, 2009

Mr. xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxx Street
xxxxxxx, IL 62946

Dear Mr. xxxxx:

Thank you for your message about gun control. I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
I am not against the possession of guns. Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible fashion. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of any effort to reduce gun violence. I have consistently supported tough crime control and prevention initiatives since coming to Congress.
Enforcing our nation's existing gun control laws must remain a high priority. I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban are supported by law enforcement officials who must patrol our streets. These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.
I will continue to support efforts that help ensure our nation's gun laws are vigorously enforced. Thank you once again for contacting me.
Please feel free to stay in touch.
Sincerely,



Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

If you enjoyed reading about "Senator Durbin's response to my email" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NG VI
February 3, 2009, 10:11 PM
What a hack, I wonder if his handlers really thought that was a reasonable response to your inquiry.

ip8riot
February 3, 2009, 10:14 PM
I would point out that it is the politicized chiefs groups and not the actual rank and file beat cops who support gun control. Then hit him with some "more guns = less crime statistics." Unfortunately you still won't change his mind. Just let him know that you are paying attention to how he votes on the issue and if he chooses to infringe on the Constitution, you will do all in your power to to get him booted in the next election.

yokel
February 3, 2009, 10:20 PM
Durbin lets his disdain for the Second Amendment infect his commentary.

These evil, corrupt officials are lording over us and having a ball for now, but sooner or later the people will get even with them!

homers
February 3, 2009, 10:32 PM
It was probably an auto response based upon subject. Send another from a different email address with something about gun control and see if you get the exact same response. Nobody probably even opened and read your email.

X-Rap
February 3, 2009, 10:34 PM
Turban Durban is one of those that you must at some point quit electing. I can't understand what he does for the people of your state.

rickomatic
February 3, 2009, 10:35 PM
IBTL

Sounds about the same as another Chicago politician I read about recently.

Jeff White
February 3, 2009, 11:09 PM
You are wasting your time with Durbin. I had a face to meeting with him on December 22, 1993 when the debate on the first AWB was going on. He was my congressman then.

I presented him with a petition signed by over 40 police officers rank of sergeant and below here in Marion County stating that we, the people who strapped on body armor and went out to enforce the law thought the AWB was meaningless and that any further restrictions on guns would have no effect on the crime rate.

Durbin listened, responded with a couple quips about the president's effort to get rid of kitchen table FFLs ("More gun dealers then gas stations" was the Brady talking point he used) and told me we made a lot of sense and the AWB legislation didn't make sense since "assault weapons" weren't used in crimes. Throughout the debate his office kept all of us informed by mail and every letter said he hadn't made up his mind. Then when he voted for it, he sent me a letter saying that he had to believe more experienced people and enclosed was a copy of a letter from Dewey Stokes, the president of the FOP who was aunion hack, not a street cop and one from the director of the Illinois State Police who also was a political hack and not a cop.

The man looked me in the eye and lied to me. I have no doubt that he had his mind made up that day in his Centralia office. The wishes of his constituents have nothing to do with how he votes, logic and reason have nothing to do with how he votes and some day if there is a God I will get another face to face meeting with him and he'll listen to what a lying SOB he is.

Kansan
February 3, 2009, 11:21 PM
These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.

Hunting and sporting uses are great, but let's hear what our founders had to say...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

chuckusaret
February 4, 2009, 12:26 AM
Dear Richard J. Durbin; Based on your comments I will not be voting for when you run for re election.

A Registered Voter,

Joe Smith

Mello
February 4, 2009, 12:41 AM
You might want to search the Heller Supreme Court decision. Somewhere in there the majority stated that the 2nd Amendment was not about sporting purposes.

JKimball
February 4, 2009, 12:50 AM
These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.


You might agree that legitimate hunting uses of firearms wouldn't be infringed, then ask him if he would agree it infringes on your legitimate self-defense uses of firearms.

His letter conveniently neglected that legitimate purpose of firearms.

He may say you don't need an auto-loading carbine for self defense. But if it is good enough for law enforcement, you shouldn't be stuck with anything less when your life and the lives of your family may be on the line.

Cuda
February 4, 2009, 01:14 AM
Dear Mr Durbin.

It's apparent you have decided to break your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Hence, I will not be voting for you.

Have a nice day



C

Defense Minister
February 4, 2009, 01:20 AM
You might remind him to read the Constitution that he has been sworn to uphold and point out that the 2nd Amendment isn't about "hunting and sporting uses of firearms"...

john1911
February 4, 2009, 08:56 AM
You are wasting your time with Durbin.

Exactly. He is an anti-gun liberal. Facts won't sway his views and he'll never be voted out as long as he wishes to run.

Kind of Blued
February 4, 2009, 02:35 PM
What an idiot.

"Nevermind this frivelous Constitution crap and Supreme Court nonsense..."

Megistopoda
February 16, 2009, 03:41 PM
I have received very similar responses from Durbin. I am happy when people write to him about this, but he will not be changing his mind.


Mello said:
You might want to search the Heller Supreme Court decision. Somewhere in there the majority stated that the 2nd Amendment was not about sporting purposes.

I am pretty certain that the majority did not speak directly to the invalidity of the so-called "sporting purpose." However, they do speak to defense, and particularly self-defense, as the "core purpose" of the guarantee.

They held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

In dicta, the majority also stated:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual [second amendment] elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

If the core purposes are "self-defense" and that "in case of confrontation", it is clear that restrictions of arms based on the argument that they serve no "sporting purpose" are rounding invalid. Moreover, "traditionally lawful purposes" absolutely include the keeping and the bearing of guns ... and the use of and training with said guns ... for service in a citizen's militia (a well-regulated militia). I will be damned if I will be limited to a "sporting-purposes type arm" for that traditionally lawful purpose. And I suspect that some here agree with me.

Second Amendment jurisprucence has only just begun.

DocBoCook
February 16, 2009, 04:34 PM
I got the exact same response. Seems like an auto response for anyone emailing him about gun laws

MT GUNNY
February 16, 2009, 07:02 PM
Give Us His E mail Address!!!

levrluvr
February 17, 2009, 04:43 PM
On a positive note, Pat Perez (sheriff, Kane County, IL) was recently on WIND, a notably conservative radio station in the Chicago area. He stated to the interviewers that he has unanimous support from every sheriff in the state of Illinois and the majority of LEO's in Cook County, plus the backing of the State Police to enourage changing the current CCW ban in the state.
It certainly isn't likely that the Daleyites would be swayed or will change the law, but it certainly is a good thing to have the LEO's of the state on our side. The pressure must be kept up on the politicians by 'We the People'.

If you enjoyed reading about "Senator Durbin's response to my email" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!