[280PLUS]

first off, the name of my company is "marx diversified",,,so the letter is addressed to "Mr Marx Diversified"

don't ask me where they got that except for off the return address on the envelope

secondly, if the moderators feel this should be over at political instead, accept my apologies and please relocate,,,

i want to reply so either enter your suggestions OR in your bestest, nicest THR manner reply yourself and i will print out the whole thread (if i can?) and mail it in it's entirety to the esteemed senator, and maybe lieberman too, but he hasn't replied, yet...

must be too busy losing in his bid to be president, :eek:

it starts,,,

10 / 1 / 2003

Dear Mr Diversified, :rolleyes:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal assault weapons ban.

Throughout my career in public service, I have supported a balanced approach to gun regulation that reduces crime while protecting the legitimate interests of law abiding Americans who own guns for self defense, hunting and recreational purposes. I recognize that responsible gun ownership has long been part of America's heritage. At the same time, I believe that it is the obligation of a government to pursue respnsible policies that protect innocent Americans - particularly children - from gun violence.

As you know, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 prohibits the manufacture, sale, and possesion of semi automatic assault weapons. Prior to the ban, assault weapons accounted for more than 17 percent of fatal shootings of police officers, and officers were concerned that the increased use of assault weapons by criminals would force them to carry more powerful, deadlier weapons which would make our communitites less safe. As a result, virtually every major national law enforcement organization supported the ban. Since the ban took effect, the number of assault weapons traced to crime has significantly dropped, and violent crime in general has decreased.The ban, however, was passed only for a ten year period, and is therefore scheduled to expire in 2004 unless it is extended.

While I understand your concerns about the ban, I believe it has helped remove from the streets dangerous weapons whose sole purpose is to take human life. As such, I support an extension of the ban to ensure that these dangerouis weapons are kept off our streets. I do not believe that the ban unduly hinders the ability of law abiding Americans to purchase or use firearms forhunting or recreation; indeed, the ban's definition of an assault weapon is extremely limited, and the ban explicitlyexempts 670 hunting rifles and other recreationl guns. As you may know, Senator Diane Feinstein(D-CA) introduced the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003 earlier this year. This bioll would repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, thus leaving in place the ban on the manufacture of 19 types of military style assault weapons and amends the Brady Handgun Vioplence Prevention Act to prohibit the importation into the United States of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Please be assured I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider legislation related to the assault weapons ban this year.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Dodd

United States Senator

so there it is, I see a few points I'd like to bring up with him.

and i'm probably missing a few,,,

Unfortunately no time to go further into it now.

m

[Mark Tyson]

Prior to the ban, assault weapons accounted for more than 17 percent of fatal shootings of police officers

The hell they did. At least not until they expanded their definition to include any gun or pistol that could accept a +10 round mag.

As a result, virtually every major national law enforcement organization supported the ban. Since the ban took effect, the number of assault weapons traced to crime has significantly dropped, and violent crime in general has decreased

The hell they did - at least not the cops I know.

Violent crime depends on a number of factors. It is not, however, affected by gun legislation. I could just as easily claim that the drop in violent crime came about because of the increase in shall issue CCW states.

and the ban explicitlyexempts 670 hunting rifles and other recreationl guns

Great. Yes, that's what the 2nd amendment is about.

Enough of this jibba-jabba.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=558431

[Augustwest]

Other than the "Mr. Diversified" part, I got the exact same letter.

And I'm crushed that he didn't write it 'specially for me :D

As far as I'm concerned, writing more letters, even if they make a perfect case for our position, is much like peein' into the wind.

[TarpleyG]

I got the same letter, not verbatim, from Graham or Nelson (forget which). I think it is common for them to fence-sit on touchy subjects.

GT

[280PLUS]

:fire:

:D

heck, i write a pretty good letter and i dont think i've fired this guy up yet,,,

i'll give it a shot, (no pun intended)

just for fun if nothing else, i'll probably make the "watching this guy" list, if i'm not there already :evil:

sitting on the fence is right where he is alright, its just to me the defining of an assault weapon certainly has caused manipulation of the number he (they?) throws out. plus do you notice there is no mention of what the "new" numbers are , just that theyve "gone down significantly"

and exactly how does eliminating one of either a bayonet lug, pistol grip or (can't recall the third) make a firearm any less deadly?

ah well, if i'm going to urinate into an oncoming rush of air, i might as well do it here i guess, at least you people can feel my pain,,,

;)

[TallPine]

and exactly how does eliminating one of either a bayonet lug, pistol grip or (can't recall the third) make a firearm any less deadly?
Well, for one thing, the number of drive-by-bayonettings has dropped dramatically ... :rolleyes:

[sw442642]

It won't make any difference but if you write back:

Koper, C., & Roth, J. A. (2001). The impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on gun violence outcomes: An assessment of multiple outcome measures and some lessons for policy evaluation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(1), 33-74.

This is a study funded by DOJ that conclusively demonstrated that there is no impact on any crime indicator by the AWB.

So his assertion is pure crap and to state it without knowledge of the research is fradulent.

If you search on the web with the authors' names you can find more.

It won't change one mind though. The AWB is a trap that democrats use to attack guns. Bush is too stupid or duplicitous to deal with this. Thus he supports the AWB.

The AWB attack is simply a slippery slope measure to ban more guns. It is exactly like the Partial Birth Abortion ban in strategy. Take something that looks terrible and ban it and then move on.

The right will be happy with no abortions and the left will be happy with no guns. Antiliberty morons on boths sides can share a beer.

[Old Fuff]

Point out that the so-called "ban" grandfathered all of the guns made prior to 1994. Thus literally hundreds of thousands of these arms remained in circulation. All that changed was that they were then called "pre-ban" (whatever).

Meanwhile most of the manufacturers made minor changes to comply with the law and continued to produce more. These are called "post-ban" (whatever).

The net result is that over the nine-year period the number of guns increased while their numbers in crime statistics dropped. Given these facts what positive effect did the ban have on crime rates? Obviously none.

If the ban had been a real one and pre-ban guns had been confiscated while future production had been completely stopped they might claim that the sharp reduction in available arms was what caused the drop in related crime, although that would be doubtful because criminals would have never turned in their guns.

As it is, with more guns out there they have no case at all. But facts don't effect liberals - especially liberal Democrats, at all. Still we can rub their noses in it.

[Travis McGee]

"Dear Mr. Diversified,"

You just gotta love that personal touch, and the intelligent staff employed by our "leaders."

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/snakelogo.jpg

[labgrade]

I think it is common for them to fence-sit on touchy subjects."

Fence sit!?

The guy came right out & said that he'll vote for contiuance of the AWB bill.

These yahoos (worse - decorum allows me to refrain in Oleg's Living room) have trashed your rights & will continue to do so until they no longer have any vote.

You will not "educate" this fellow, but do respond that his answer is totally unacceptable, why & you will do whatever legal thing it takes to make sure he never holds elected office again - based solely on this particular stance.

[C.R.Sam]

Agree, fits better in Political.
Scootin it over.

Sam

[Henry]

Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of rhetoric, half-truths, and outright lies that we should expect from these liberal Democrats. Just remember who they are when it comes time to vote.

[Brian Dale]

From his letter: the ban's definition of an assault weapon is extremely limited, and the ban explicitlyexempts 670 hunting rifles and other recreationl guns. Clarification, please. I thought the old ban prohibited certain weapons and features, and that it was the NEW Feinstein ban that listed 670 exempt firearms. Also, officers were concerned that the increased use of assault weapons by criminals would force them to carry more powerful, deadlier weapons which would make our communitites less safe. What in the world is he talking about here?

"Thank you for taking the time to send this form letter, Senator Dodd. Please permit me to note that there are excellent spell-checkers available now. It's not because of spelling, however, that I look forward to supporting a candidate in your next election cycle who listens more closely to his constituents than to the Brady Center."

"Mr. Diversified," indeed.

[Justin]

The newly proposed ban does not exempt anything. It lists a whole gamut of firearms, the bulk of which are semi-auto, though it does include a pump-action shotgun. Hmmm... A law designed to regulate semi-automatic 'assault weapons' includes a pump-action shotgun?

Also, it includes a bit that says that any firearm, regardless of operating system can be banned simply for being a derivative of a military design.

huh.
Well that leaves...what? I mean, c'mon, every firearm design started out as a military weapon at one time or another.

For more info, here's a link to an analysis of the newly proposed ban that I wrote a few months ago:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23494&highlight=ban

Oh, and at least you got a reply from your congresscritter that dealt with the topic at hand. I wrote mine a letter about the ban, and got a response thanking me for my stance with regard to relations between the US and France. :rolleyes:

[greyhound]

Americans who own guns for self defense

Though almost all of his letter is leftist drivel, I give him a tiny bit of credit for at least including this. My Senators only go the "hunters and target shooters" route.....

[greyhound]

so the letter is addressed to "Mr Marx Diversified"

Please permit me to note that there are excellent spell-checkers available now

Well, the staffers probably got too excited when they saw the "Mr. Marx" part....:D

[longeyes]

My response is that they should rewrite the bill as an Assault Person
Ban. Go after criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

People like Dodd know exactly what the Second Amendment is all about.
And that is exactly why they keep talking around what it really
stands for. They fear the people. Let's leave it that way.

[Standing Wolf]

While I understand your concerns about the ban, I believe it has helped remove from the streets dangerous weapons whose sole purpose is to take human life.

He needs to be fired: he's way too far out of touch with American law and reality.

[capt_happypants]

Cut out the Yellow Pages ads for moving companies, and send Senator Dodd a friendly reminder:

"Vote for any renewal of the AWB, and you'll be needing this."

[Moparmike]

Dear Sir,
This ban does nothing to prevent criminals from keeping the "Assault-style" weapons they currently have, or obtaining them on the black market. We already have laws to prevent and punish crimials who are not allowed to possess firearms. We have laws to punish firearms used in crime. This bill does neither.
"Assault-style" weapons, which are typically rifles, are not used in a large percentage of crimes. Pistols with full-capacity magazines (10 or more cartridges) are not "Assault-style" weapons. The AWB and Magazine-ban serve no purpose. Those who are for the renewal and stregnthening of the AWB have even admitted the futility of the ban, by saying that manufacturers have made "cosmetic changes" to their previous products, and have continued selling these firearms legaly. Full-capacity magazines are still abundant, especially for military-style semi-automatic weapons. You yourself just stated in your letter "the number of assault weapons traced to crime has significantly dropped, and violent crime in general has decreased", yet these firearms are still prevelant in our society, and every law-abiding citizen who so desires can go jump through all the legal hoops and buy the magazines made before September 14, 1994 (at an inflated price I might add) and firearms made before the ban or those made without the scary "Cosmetic features" such as folding stocks, removable magazines, bayonet lug, and pistol grip.

Now, can you honestly tell me that there is a good reason to renew this ban when nothing except the price of pre-ban guns has changed?How did I do? It is so hard to be cordial when you want to beat them with a Cluebat™ and help them see the light of common sense.

[280PLUS]

then i'll take a few days and then post my reply here for your approval...

any and all suggestions are appreciated

m