Secret Master
Member
For your reading pleasure, here is a transcription (and subsequent fisking) of a letter I received from Congressman George Miller, California 7th District. Feel free to contact him if you too live in my district.
Dear Mr. Walters:
Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the re-authorization of the federal ban on assault weapons.
I feel for Rep. Miller's staffers, really - you should have read my letter. It wasn't rude or anything, though, as George and his people are painfully polite in their correspondence. I am under no such restriction here, however.
Groundbreaking legislation enacted by Congress in 1194 that outlawed the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons is due to expire in 2004 unless Congress and the President renew it. President Bush has already come out in support of the existing current ban.
Which hits the nail on the head here - the current ban. Not this monstrosity which our friends at the "Progressive Caucus" have cooked up.
The current assault weapons ban is supported by virtually every federal, state, and local law enforcement agency across the land. Sure, it only bans 19 guns - not 68 including all automatic shotguns. I'd still like some more specific agency names, George, if you have any Since its introduction in 1994, the ban has increased public safety How? Some facts please George and prevented dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of violent criminals, including gang members and terrorists.
Yes, that's right kids, the Democratic Progressive Caucus is here to protect Americans from the Consti... er, from terror! Just like we were when Clinton was president! And it's worked, too, just like in England and Australia....uh, well better than that!
I am cosponsor of H.R. 2038 not something to be proud of George, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act Nice touch on the name there - you're either with US or against the police. Nice. of 2003, designed to renew the strengthen the ban um, to say the least and take additional steps to help keep military-style firearms out of America's neighborhoods and, more importantly, out of the hands of peasants like you people. Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban uh-huh because of the threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety In reality very few crimes are ever committed with these weapons. George knows this too.. Studies show that the ban has worked. Unfortunately the government's own exhaustive studies actually showed that they haven't done anything one way or the other - George knows this as well.In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20 percent in the first year after the federal ban took effect. There is so much wrong with this sentence I have no idea where to begin. What do you mean by "assault weapon"? Do you mean the 19 weapons made illegal in 1994? If they were illegal to buy, why were there any trace requests at all? Used guns? What does it all mean?Consequently, all major police organizations nationwide you only list two, George, why is that?, including the National Association of Police Organizations and the California Police Chiefs Association basically part of the California Democratic Party strongly support keeping the assault weapons ban.
Unfortunately, even with its many re: none successes, would-be criminals note: not actual criminals. He means gun owners. have demonstrated the ban's limitations We just aren't a socialist police state yet, dammit! #sigh# If we could only be more like the French.... These include: a gun manufacturers ability to slightly modify an assault weapon so as to evade the ban's coverage You've gotta love capitalism, George... oh, wait, you belong to the Progressive Caucus! Sorry, I forgot.; the sale of ‘parts kits' which permit criminals to assemble unlawful assault weapons Re: he wants to make that cool-looking plastic stock you bought illegal.; and various reports indicating the continued use of these weapons in the senseless killing of local law enforcement personnel Wow, that does sound bad ! Who and where? Uh, what do you mean that you don't have any statistics in front of you....
Assault weapons possess unique, military-bred, anti-personnel design characteristics Which makes them particularly useful for defending yourself and your family. Not that George wants you to do that either; there are no references to self-defense in his letter. Only hunting and sporting use.. These features, taken together, make it easy for a shooter to simply point – as opposed to carefully aiming – the weapon to quickly target a relatively wide area with a lethal spray of bullets If your weapon is fully auto, sure, but that's been illegal for a long time, so no more new law needed. Right? This makes assault re: semi-auto weapons especially attractive to criminals Except in the real world of actual statistics where most gun crimes are committed with a shotgun, revolver, or semi-auto pistol.... but don't worry, they'll come after those next. and distinguished them from true hunting weapons Because we Democrats are you hunter's best friends: we care about you. Yeah, that's the ticket....and then his lips fell off.
These types of weapons have no legitimate hunting or sporting use That's debatable, but not the point: they are excellent self defense weapons, come what may in this crazy old world. And I think I know what's coming, how about you?, and are instead the weapons of choice for violent criminals who use them all to often against police officers. Actually, this statistically seldom happens -- but even if it did George's law wouldn't prevent it. Once again, he knows it too. I believe extending this ban is important step in making our nation into a police state our communities safer.
Sincerely,
Representative George Miller
Well, at least he's fairly polite: ever heard Boxer speak? Good gravey- nails on a chalkboard baby! Here is the response which I am sending along with a copy of Wayne LaPierre's Gun's, Freedom and Terrorism. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a waist - but I bought a spare copy.
Representative George Miller
7th District, California
3320 Blume Drive
Richmond, CA 94806
Dear Representative Miller:
Thank you for your reply explaining your position on H.R. 2038.
Unfortunately your reply, while (as always) extremely polite, it is filled with half-truths, untruths, and information taken out of context as anyone familiar with this issue can clearly see. H.R. 2038 is not a continuation of President Clinton's controversial 1994 bill; it is the single most far-reaching piece of gun control legislation ever presented to the United State House of Representatives, banning 68 models where President Clinton's only banned 19. It is not, in any way, acceptable to the American people – it would make my grandfather's M1 Garand illegal, for goodness sakes! I mean, common Congressman: can you really provide me with statistics showing how many Springfield Armory M1's are used by "violent criminals, including gang members and terrorists" each year in our nation? Oh, and how many .30 Caliber carbines were used in crimes on American soil last year? No? I didn't think so.
Representative, I know that you (or, more likely, your staffer) are very busy so I am not going to annoy you with a "fisking" of the information provided in your letter as it would be impolite, time consuming, and ultimately pointless: your bill isn't even going to get to the floor of the house. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-The Constitution) has promised as much and, say what you will of the man, he keeps his word. Furthermore, President Bush promised to sign a continuation of specifically the 1994 law passed under our former president, not any law that is proposed. He isn't signing this thing and, if Howard Dean's performance in the South is any indication, your party isn't going to the Whitehouse next year.
So this begs the question: why propose a draconian gun law that is doomed to failure, infuriates conservative constituents like me, and that, frankly, I doubt even you believe that strongly in? Well, it could simply be a bargaining position: ask for everything and maybe you can walk away with something. A reasonable enough tactic. Or perhaps you and your colleagues on the far-left are laying the groundwork for an unlikely (but possible) last minuet election-eve stab at the President: he told us that he would sign this bill but now he won't or some other such bombast. That would also make good horse sense. Like any veteran political observer, I can certainly appreciate clever (if amoral) maneuvering from the opposition.
What really bothers me Congressman is not your deplorable position on the issue of 2nd Amendment civil rights. After all, what else can I expect from a member of the Progressive Caucus, a neo-socialist organization co-chaired by the famous if none-too-stable Dennis Kucinich? Admittedly, if I had to spend a lot of quality time around Dennis I might develop a different view of H.R. 2038; I wouldn't want him to regularly tote around a Ruger Mini-14, either. What if he had a flashback, thought that he'd been struck by an orbital mind control laser, and.... well, I'm sure you understand. It's not a pretty picture.
No, what offends me is your absolute certainty that the 7th District isn't, nor could ever be, "in play" (as the saying goes) to a more 2nd Amendment friendly, pro-business candidate. Not pro-gun or anything, mind you, but simply less fanatically anti-gun. Oh, I'd be the first to admit it's pretty unlikely. But after the California recall election can you really be all that certain that the votes of people like me (there really are quite a lot of us in Richmond alone, you know) don't matter? When the recall election was still just a twinkle in the California Republican Party's eye, people just like me were dropping off petitions to shooting ranges and gun stores, talking to folks bars and restaurants, and posting links The People's Advocate on various weblogs. I personally gathered signatures in Berkeley with little difficulty. Think about it.
"California is not in play. Period," state Democratic consultant Bill Carrick recently stated when asked about our state in the upcoming presidential race. Which is all very butch -- but after the last couple of weeks, are you as certain as he is? Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Msr. Walters
Dear Mr. Walters:
Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the re-authorization of the federal ban on assault weapons.
I feel for Rep. Miller's staffers, really - you should have read my letter. It wasn't rude or anything, though, as George and his people are painfully polite in their correspondence. I am under no such restriction here, however.
Groundbreaking legislation enacted by Congress in 1194 that outlawed the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons is due to expire in 2004 unless Congress and the President renew it. President Bush has already come out in support of the existing current ban.
Which hits the nail on the head here - the current ban. Not this monstrosity which our friends at the "Progressive Caucus" have cooked up.
The current assault weapons ban is supported by virtually every federal, state, and local law enforcement agency across the land. Sure, it only bans 19 guns - not 68 including all automatic shotguns. I'd still like some more specific agency names, George, if you have any Since its introduction in 1994, the ban has increased public safety How? Some facts please George and prevented dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of violent criminals, including gang members and terrorists.
Yes, that's right kids, the Democratic Progressive Caucus is here to protect Americans from the Consti... er, from terror! Just like we were when Clinton was president! And it's worked, too, just like in England and Australia....uh, well better than that!
I am cosponsor of H.R. 2038 not something to be proud of George, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act Nice touch on the name there - you're either with US or against the police. Nice. of 2003, designed to renew the strengthen the ban um, to say the least and take additional steps to help keep military-style firearms out of America's neighborhoods and, more importantly, out of the hands of peasants like you people. Law enforcement led the fight for the original assault weapons ban uh-huh because of the threat these weapons posed to police officers and public safety In reality very few crimes are ever committed with these weapons. George knows this too.. Studies show that the ban has worked. Unfortunately the government's own exhaustive studies actually showed that they haven't done anything one way or the other - George knows this as well.In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20 percent in the first year after the federal ban took effect. There is so much wrong with this sentence I have no idea where to begin. What do you mean by "assault weapon"? Do you mean the 19 weapons made illegal in 1994? If they were illegal to buy, why were there any trace requests at all? Used guns? What does it all mean?Consequently, all major police organizations nationwide you only list two, George, why is that?, including the National Association of Police Organizations and the California Police Chiefs Association basically part of the California Democratic Party strongly support keeping the assault weapons ban.
Unfortunately, even with its many re: none successes, would-be criminals note: not actual criminals. He means gun owners. have demonstrated the ban's limitations We just aren't a socialist police state yet, dammit! #sigh# If we could only be more like the French.... These include: a gun manufacturers ability to slightly modify an assault weapon so as to evade the ban's coverage You've gotta love capitalism, George... oh, wait, you belong to the Progressive Caucus! Sorry, I forgot.; the sale of ‘parts kits' which permit criminals to assemble unlawful assault weapons Re: he wants to make that cool-looking plastic stock you bought illegal.; and various reports indicating the continued use of these weapons in the senseless killing of local law enforcement personnel Wow, that does sound bad ! Who and where? Uh, what do you mean that you don't have any statistics in front of you....
Assault weapons possess unique, military-bred, anti-personnel design characteristics Which makes them particularly useful for defending yourself and your family. Not that George wants you to do that either; there are no references to self-defense in his letter. Only hunting and sporting use.. These features, taken together, make it easy for a shooter to simply point – as opposed to carefully aiming – the weapon to quickly target a relatively wide area with a lethal spray of bullets If your weapon is fully auto, sure, but that's been illegal for a long time, so no more new law needed. Right? This makes assault re: semi-auto weapons especially attractive to criminals Except in the real world of actual statistics where most gun crimes are committed with a shotgun, revolver, or semi-auto pistol.... but don't worry, they'll come after those next. and distinguished them from true hunting weapons Because we Democrats are you hunter's best friends: we care about you. Yeah, that's the ticket....and then his lips fell off.
These types of weapons have no legitimate hunting or sporting use That's debatable, but not the point: they are excellent self defense weapons, come what may in this crazy old world. And I think I know what's coming, how about you?, and are instead the weapons of choice for violent criminals who use them all to often against police officers. Actually, this statistically seldom happens -- but even if it did George's law wouldn't prevent it. Once again, he knows it too. I believe extending this ban is important step in making our nation into a police state our communities safer.
Sincerely,
Representative George Miller
Well, at least he's fairly polite: ever heard Boxer speak? Good gravey- nails on a chalkboard baby! Here is the response which I am sending along with a copy of Wayne LaPierre's Gun's, Freedom and Terrorism. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a waist - but I bought a spare copy.
Representative George Miller
7th District, California
3320 Blume Drive
Richmond, CA 94806
Dear Representative Miller:
Thank you for your reply explaining your position on H.R. 2038.
Unfortunately your reply, while (as always) extremely polite, it is filled with half-truths, untruths, and information taken out of context as anyone familiar with this issue can clearly see. H.R. 2038 is not a continuation of President Clinton's controversial 1994 bill; it is the single most far-reaching piece of gun control legislation ever presented to the United State House of Representatives, banning 68 models where President Clinton's only banned 19. It is not, in any way, acceptable to the American people – it would make my grandfather's M1 Garand illegal, for goodness sakes! I mean, common Congressman: can you really provide me with statistics showing how many Springfield Armory M1's are used by "violent criminals, including gang members and terrorists" each year in our nation? Oh, and how many .30 Caliber carbines were used in crimes on American soil last year? No? I didn't think so.
Representative, I know that you (or, more likely, your staffer) are very busy so I am not going to annoy you with a "fisking" of the information provided in your letter as it would be impolite, time consuming, and ultimately pointless: your bill isn't even going to get to the floor of the house. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-The Constitution) has promised as much and, say what you will of the man, he keeps his word. Furthermore, President Bush promised to sign a continuation of specifically the 1994 law passed under our former president, not any law that is proposed. He isn't signing this thing and, if Howard Dean's performance in the South is any indication, your party isn't going to the Whitehouse next year.
So this begs the question: why propose a draconian gun law that is doomed to failure, infuriates conservative constituents like me, and that, frankly, I doubt even you believe that strongly in? Well, it could simply be a bargaining position: ask for everything and maybe you can walk away with something. A reasonable enough tactic. Or perhaps you and your colleagues on the far-left are laying the groundwork for an unlikely (but possible) last minuet election-eve stab at the President: he told us that he would sign this bill but now he won't or some other such bombast. That would also make good horse sense. Like any veteran political observer, I can certainly appreciate clever (if amoral) maneuvering from the opposition.
What really bothers me Congressman is not your deplorable position on the issue of 2nd Amendment civil rights. After all, what else can I expect from a member of the Progressive Caucus, a neo-socialist organization co-chaired by the famous if none-too-stable Dennis Kucinich? Admittedly, if I had to spend a lot of quality time around Dennis I might develop a different view of H.R. 2038; I wouldn't want him to regularly tote around a Ruger Mini-14, either. What if he had a flashback, thought that he'd been struck by an orbital mind control laser, and.... well, I'm sure you understand. It's not a pretty picture.
No, what offends me is your absolute certainty that the 7th District isn't, nor could ever be, "in play" (as the saying goes) to a more 2nd Amendment friendly, pro-business candidate. Not pro-gun or anything, mind you, but simply less fanatically anti-gun. Oh, I'd be the first to admit it's pretty unlikely. But after the California recall election can you really be all that certain that the votes of people like me (there really are quite a lot of us in Richmond alone, you know) don't matter? When the recall election was still just a twinkle in the California Republican Party's eye, people just like me were dropping off petitions to shooting ranges and gun stores, talking to folks bars and restaurants, and posting links The People's Advocate on various weblogs. I personally gathered signatures in Berkeley with little difficulty. Think about it.
"California is not in play. Period," state Democratic consultant Bill Carrick recently stated when asked about our state in the upcoming presidential race. Which is all very butch -- but after the last couple of weeks, are you as certain as he is? Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Msr. Walters