Your turn if you haven't yet.


PDA






cyclopsshooter
December 30, 2012, 02:55 PM
Be polite, use proper English. Try avoiding words like communist or Nazi. Bonus points if you don't use them interchangeably.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

If you enjoyed reading about "Your turn if you haven't yet." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
blarby
December 30, 2012, 03:56 PM
Bonus points if you don't use them interchangeably.

:D

As one of the few that scrutinize the language here frequently, I applaud you.

SuperNaut
December 30, 2012, 04:12 PM
Dear Mr. President,

Your recent statements regarding reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban have completely galvanized me to act. I vow to use as much time, energy, influence, and money as I am able in order to foil your efforts.

Investing the weight of your office in an attempt to revive a ban that will do literally nothing to stop massacres like the recent one in Connecticut strikes me as blatant political posturing. To me it signals an effort to do the least you can do, and shows little desire to find a real solution to a problem that causes so much grief.

...

browningguy
December 30, 2012, 05:59 PM
Actually, communists aren't all that bad, they just have a different belief system. Stalinists, now they are just evil people.

Leanwolf
December 30, 2012, 06:28 PM
BROWNINGGUY - "Actually, communists aren't all that bad, they just have a different belief system. ..."

Yeah, ask the millions upon millions of people murdered by Lenin, Brezhnev, Mao, Castro, Che, Kim Jong Il, Ho Chi Minh, et al, how they feel about that. Those "good" communists made Hitler and his goons look like Sunday afternoon picnicers.

L.W.

cyclopsshooter
December 30, 2012, 08:25 PM
Well let's stay on topic, have all of you written in?

JVaughn
December 30, 2012, 08:27 PM
I have. I feel I have written more letters this past two weeks than the past two years. I know I should stay agressive on letters, but when times are good it's easy to neglect it.

WCraven
December 30, 2012, 08:41 PM
Mr. President ,
i will not surport any weapons ban and i live my life by what the Holy Bible and the Bill of Rights tells me.

preachnhunt
December 30, 2012, 08:57 PM
Done

TheGloriousTachikoma
December 30, 2012, 08:59 PM
Thanks for the prod. I also emailed my congresscritters this evening and plan to call later in the week. Hopefully joining the NRA tomorrow.

cyclopsshooter
December 30, 2012, 09:03 PM
Good job! I just joined the NRA last week.

BluBob
December 30, 2012, 10:56 PM
This is not a discussion that lends itself to a 2500 character limit, but I did my best at a rough cut:

Mr. President,
I am concerned that the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut will be used by those with an agenda against firearm ownership to push legislation that restricts the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. I encourage you to critically evaluate any proposal of additional regulations or laws to determine if that proposal will both increase the security of the citizens of this country and also not punish those who already abide by existing laws.
When one considers the fact that the perpetrator of this recent mass killing in Connecticut committed over a dozen felonies prior to killing any of the children at Sandy Hook elementary, it is clear that additional laws would do little to deter his criminal actions. A mentally disturbed criminal intent on committing mass carnage who chooses to murder his mother, steal her firearms, steal her vehicle, transport those firearms in the stolen vehicle, and bring those stolen firearms onto an elementary school campus will most likely be unconcerned about magazine capacity limitations or the possession of a firearm with banned characteristics.
To those who believe that more laws will "keep guns out of the hands of criminals" I would highlight the nearly 300 million guns currently within the U.S. borders. If one truly wants to ensure that guns are not available to criminals, there is only one option: complete firearm elimination within the U.S. This option is neither feasible, politically palatable to the American people, nor constitutional.
It is not feasible for the simple fact that very few of the 300 million firearms in the country are registered by name or location. Clearly, based on the marked spike in both gun purchases (first-time buyers as well as existing gun owners)and NRA membership in the past few weeks, this option is also not supported by the people (or at least not a majority of them). And lastly, a complete confiscation and destruction effort, with further ban on any future possession or production would be directly counter to the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If any lawmaker doubts the vertical challenge of any one of the three hurdles (infeasible, unpalatable, unconstitutional) I would encourage him or her to begin open discussion and drafting of a petition or bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. Any other piecemeal attempts at limiting lawful gun owners rights through magazine capacity restrictions or aesthetic based model bans are both disingenuous and ineffective.

It's an argument that can be attacked from so many angles, but I figured political and logistical futility, with the constitutionality as an underlying argument was the best "short" comment submission.

I'd like to write another 2500 characters about how the cretin who killed in Newtown most likely did not even use an AR. Initial police releases I read said the AR was recovered from his vehicle, while he had shot himself dead inside the building. But that didn't stop the media from highlighting the AR/M4/Bushmaster/AW/MSR angle. Which I am just assuming did not go unnoticed by the other cretin in New York who shot up the firefighters responding to his burning house a week or so later.

Whacked
December 31, 2012, 12:38 AM
done and done.

I've been so disgusted with everything that I haven't been keeping up in the news.
I understand that the supposed "Evil Black" found at sandy Hook was actually in someone else's car?

BDrinkard
January 1, 2013, 12:46 PM
Wow, I thought I was beating my head against the wall contacting my Democratic "representatives" in Congress. Writing directly to the Usurper in Chief is going to leave a mark.
I still wrote and suggested he read the Constitution and pretend it's actually the law of the land. They have to repeal the 2nd Amendment if they want to ban common firearms. 2/3 of both houses + 3/4 of the state legislatures, in case you're rusty on civics. Otherwise, they do not have the authority.

dcarch
January 1, 2013, 12:54 PM
Done, although I used Congress.org to email not only the president, but my congressmen. Here's my letter:
Originally written by me:
Dear Mr. President, and my other elected leaders. I oppose in the strongest terms the proposed Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban. There are
three major reasons why I oppose this proposed law. First, the law treads upon the fundamental freedoms of law-abiding United States citizens. If this law is passed, citizens like myself, who own modern sporting rifles, will be forced to register our weapons and submit to rigorous law enforcement screenings, including fingerprinting. -all without ever committing a violent crime. This is clearly a reprehensible and intolerable crime against our liberty and privacy, and will certainly have negative political effects for its proponents.
Secondly, previous assault weapons bans have had little to no effect on cutting crime levels. In fact, according to the Updated Assessment to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, "If anything, therefore, gun attacks appear to have been more lethal and injurious since the ban." (Christopher Koper, Updated Assessment of The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, pp. 102)This is due to the fact that, during a prohibition effort, much like the National Alcohol Prohibition from 1920 to 1933, smuggling of the banned items becomes much more profitable and lucrative. Considering the violence which already exists due to the "War on Drugs" and its respective smuggling, adding weapons as a cash cow for the cartels would certainly prove to be a dangerous action.
Finally, the proposed assault weapons ban would further injure the already smuggling economy, as there are well over one hundred AR-15 manufacturers alone in the United States. Were the ban to pass, almost all of these manufacturers would have to close their doors, with the possible exception of those with governmental contracts. This would be loss of literally thousands of jobs nationwide, and would further the already dour recession conditions. Therefore, in closing, I respectfully recommend that the proposed Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban be opposed and not adopted. Thank
you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours, dcarch

If you enjoyed reading about "Your turn if you haven't yet." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!