Call your reps.

[1911austin]

I called and spoke with staff members of my elected officials in Washington D.C. I am happy to report that Representative John Carter, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Ted Cruz are all fully supporting the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. None of them would support any further restriction on our unalienable rights.

I would ask my fellow citizens to do the same and reply to this thread with the answers that you receive from the elected official’s offices. I know a lot of you live in districts that are a lost cause. However, we may identify a few congressmen and senators that are on the fence about gun control. If we can identify those officials who are undecided, we may be able to convince their constituents to get involved and write letters or make phone calls opposing this anti gun onslaught we are facing.

If we do nothing our liberty will be lost.

 

[Billy Shears]

I just received a reply from my congressman. Here is the full text of his reply:

Thank you very much for contacting me to express your views on the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. I value and give careful consideration to the good counsel that I receive, and refer to that good counsel as the "wisdom of the district."

On Friday, December 14, I turned the television on expecting to see an update on the "fiscal cliff." Instead the screen filled with images from the unspeakable tragedy which was still unfolding in Newtown, Connecticut. A safe haven for children had become a killing field, enveloping Sandy Hook Elementary School and our country in anguish too great to comprehend. Teri and I join America in mourning over the loss of innocent life. Our deepest sympathies, prayers, and heartfelt condolences are with the families of the victims.

The horror at Sandy Hook Elementary makes tragically clear that we are not meeting our obligation to protect our children. That is profoundly wrong. We must take wise steps to reduce mass shootings and gun violence. Doing nothing is not an option.

A national debate on what those next steps should be continues to create tension between the moral imperative to protect our children with the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment. I have not immediately demanded that specific steps be taken in response to the tragedy. That's deliberate, because I have come to appreciate the wisdom gained by gathering and reviewing relevant facts; by hearing from you, the residents of the 2nd district; and by taking time to properly assess the alternatives. There are, however, certain foundational principles I hold to be true and which will guide me in this process, including:

• Those suffering from mental illness must have access to proper psychiatric care, but they must not have access to guns.

• Gun ownership is a constitutional right, carrying with it a high burden of responsibility.

• Taking substantive steps to better protect our children and preserving Second Amendment rights are not mutually exclusive ends, though I acknowledge the difficulty in balancing the two.

• President Obama was correct when he stated: "No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society."

Due diligence is not inaction, and you can expect to see specific updates on my efforts to address this critical topic in upcoming editions of the Rigell Report. Though news coverage of the tragedy will diminish, my commitment to advancing the right steps to better protect our children will remain.

It is important to me that I keep you fully informed regarding how I am representing you in Congress, so please visit my website Rigell.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter, "The Rigell Report." I also encourage you to join me on Facebook at facebook.com/RepScottRigell. Both sites feature timely updates on the votes I am taking on the House floor.

In closing, please know that I consider it a high honor to serve and represent you and your family in Congress.

Mindful that I work for you, I remain
Yours in Freedom,

Scott Rigell
Member of Congress

It's not alarming, but neither is it especially reassuring. It makes it sound as if he will be open to supporting some of the bills that are likely to come up -- banning hi capacity magazines, for example.

The pity of it is, he's right that there are some actions that are needed, such as tightening the up the reporting of mentally ill persons so that they can't pass background checks, for example. Also, reevaluating the criteria for involuntarily committing people, which right now are too loose, as far as I am concerned, would be helpful. Imposing harsher penalties for the use of a firearm in any crime is another measure I think most gun owners would support, because it's aimed at criminals and their bad acts, not the tools.

But many politicians will take the easy route of attacking guns, because it's so much simpler, and if they succeed, they can have a result to point to sooner, and it will satisfy people who don't know anything about guns or how often they're used lawfully in self-defense. But taking that easy route also means they'll probably be satisfied that they've "done something" and stop there, and not accomplish any of the useful things that might actually be helpful in preventing criminals and mentally unstable people from carrying out their crimes. In other words, it's the worst of both worlds: they'll step on the rights of law-abiding citizens who are in now way at fault for any of this, while doing nothing that will actually be useful in preventing people who break laws, and won't abide by any new gun restrictions, from carrying out the next massacre.

 

[1911austin]

But many politicians will take the easy route of attacking guns, because it's so much simpler, and if they succeed, they can have a result to point to sooner, and it will satisfy people who don't know anything about guns or how often they're used lawfully in self-defense. But taking that easy route also means they'll probably be satisfied that they've "done something" and stop there, and not accomplish any of the useful things that might actually be helpful in preventing criminals and mentally unstable people from carrying out their crimes. In other words, it's the worst of both worlds: they'll step on the rights of law-abiding citizens who are in now way at fault for any of this, while doing nothing that will actually be useful in preventing people who break laws, and won't abide by any new gun restrictions, from carrying out the next massacre.

There are many politicians that will vote for more gun control despite any logical argument presented to them. It is pointless to try and engage those people with facts. Some are already with us and we are only preaching to the choir when we contact them.

Based on the response that you posted, Congressman Rigell sound like the type of politician I was talking about in my original post. Perhaps, if he heard from a lot of his constituents with solid arguments against gun control it would make a difference. This guy should receive a well thought out letter from everyone in his district that values our second amendment rights.

 

[Billy Shears]

Based on the response that you posted, Congressman Rigell sound like the type of politician I was talking about in my original post. Perhaps, if he heard from a lot of his constituents with solid arguments against gun control it would make a difference.

Not much, I'm afraid. The truth is that a congressman gets so many emails and letters, that unless you are a VIP or a relative or at least somebody he knows, your representative is very unlikely ever to see your letter or email himself. It will be handled by staffers, interns, mostly college students. They will be more about tallying things into for and against columns than parsing arguments. And the longer your letter, the more likely it is that a bored staffer with a huge pile of correspondence to wade through will not even read all the way through it. Better to keep it short and sweet.

In my case, I wrote a two page letter through snail mail on the slight chance that would be read (note, snail mail goes through scanners and other security measures, and will not get to its destination for possibly weeks). But I also send a short email, of just two brief paragraphs.

This guy should receive a well thought out letter from everyone in his district that values our second amendment rights.

I agree, provided it's a brief, well thought out letter. I hate to say it, but quantity will count for far, far more than quality. That's why I sent the snail mail letter in addition to the email, and as I said, it might just get a reading. If you only send one, send the short, concise email. It will get to the congressman's or senator's office faster, and is more likely to get read through, and therefore count for something.

 

[Ryanxia]

Agreed. Keep up the activism. We can't afford to lose any more of our un- infringable Rights.

 

[Will41]

I called and emailed everyone. Next, I am going to mail letters.

Every week I am going to do something.

I also sent Wal-Mart a letter today.