Not everyone loves John Boehner, but...

[Wyndage]

What I wrote:

Dear Speaker:

As I'm sure you are aware, gun prohibitionists are using the Newtown tragedy as a platform from which to launch a new assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. While we can all agree on the importance of keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, legislation that has been introduced in Congress would do much more than that by effectively punishing millions of Americans for a crime they did not commit.

HR 138 would arbitrarily limit the capacity of magazines and other feeding devices to ten rounds. Congress has tried this approach before, and it didn't work. The ten-year ban on so-called high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004 did not have a measurable impact on gun crime according to the Department of Justice. History proves this point: At the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris brought thirteen ten-round magazines and fired at least 98 rounds. At the Virginia Tech shooting, Seung-Hui Cho used seventeen ten- and fifteen-round magazines and fired about 170 rounds--or ten rounds per magazine. When faced with reduced magazine capacities, mass murderers will simply bring more magazines. The only people that a restriction on magazine capacity will hinder are law-abiding citizens, who in a self-defense situation will typically have only one magazine: The one that is in their gun. Having witnessed a violent assault by multiple assailants, I know there are situations where ten rounds aren't enough.

HR 142 would ban the sale of ammunition over the Internet, and require sellers of ammunition to be licensed. This would create a considerable roadblock for law-abiding citizens who have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and by extension the ammunition those arms require to function. Moreover, HR 142 would require ammunition purchases to be tracked. This would be an expensive invasion of privacy. I am aware of no evidence to suggest that mass murderers (or criminals in general) would be deterred if they were forced to buy ammunition in a face-to-face transaction. I consider any attempt to restrict the supply of ammunition to law-abiding citizens to be an assault on their Second Amendment rights, and I will support no politician who favors such action.

I have supported Republican candidates for my entire voting life, so please hear me out when I say that this is a make-or-break moment for the GOP. My continued support for the Republican party is contingent on its continued support for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. There are 80 million gun owners who are just as law-abiding today as we were the day before Adam Lanza murdered 20 elementary-aged children. As the father of a kindergartener, I understand why this tragedy has hurt Americans so deeply. But formulating policy around an emotionally charged event is unwise, especially when some of those policies have been tried before and failed to make a difference.

Please uphold your oath to support the Constitution of the United States by opposing any and all efforts to further infringe the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

XXXX

 

[Westfair]

Done. I basically told him not to cave on this one, there is nothing in it for him to compromise.

Especially since the other side defines compromise as capitulation.

 

[raddiver]

I didnt even think about contacting him.
Thank you and sent.

 

[hang fire]

It matters not as to the passing any firearm laws in the congress. Obama is talking about implementing anti gun enforcement by fiat, using executive orders.

Obama has done such before in direct contradiction of the constitution and has suffered no negative consequences. LSM and the antis will cheer him on as he breaks laws of the land, and then beg for more.

 

[gdcpony]

Dear Mr. President,

If you want citizens like me involved in a reasonable factual discussion, I am all in favor. However, your administration has been proven to be ignoring facts in favor of emotional responses that make problems worse. I now fear for the country I have spent almost half my life defending. I fear for my family's future during and in the after effects of your two terms in office.

I am afraid that actual statistics agree with your opposition. Even if I weren't a lawful firearms owner, I would only need five minutes to research and find fault with every rumored proposition your committee has released.

1. Banning "assault weapons" is foolish. The total number of murders committed with ALL rifles total is less than that of many other instruments. In fact several states report no rifles used in homicides last year. The state with the most murders committed by rifles is actually California which has an AWB in place already. That alone proves the uselessness of such a rule. Connecticut, it might be worth pointing out, had an AWB in place and it failed to prevent the tragedy in New Town.

2. Increasing Firearms regulations is also ineffective. The states with the strictest restrictions on firearms are also the ones in which most of the murders occurs. If you move it down to the local level those areas with the strictest laws are the highest most crime prone areas in the country. I would think that trying such a failed tactic would seem doomed to fail on a national level.

3. “Gun Free Zones” are killing Americans. As a Marine I am sworn to defend those who cannot defend themselves by Honor. Yet I have been stripped of that right in my own nation for my own children. I hate to think that this is true, but it is. If you look at the shootings you yourself are so focused on, almost every single one is in a place where firearms are barred. Meanwhile, there are many stories you are not allowing to be seen that show that having firearms present in such situations actually save lives. I would feel much better about my three children attending a school where teachers are allowed to protect them properly than them being easy victims of an evil man.

4. Magazine capacity has little or nothing to do with lethality. I tested this myself. I can change a magazine in my personal AR 15 in less than one second. Being that I am trained as a Marine, I asked my eleven year old child to try it. After two tries she can consistently reload in less than two seconds. I can tell you that that will not save lives. If you ban them, who will have them? The criminal element you are trying to protect us against. You again will fail. It only limits my right as a lawful gun owner.

5. Registering every firearm is not likely to succeed and will be resisted by many. I will not register my rightfully owned firearms on a list that could be later used to confiscate them. There is no nation that has registered firearms and not later confiscated most or all of them. In many of those countries, the strong soon after preys upon the weak. This can be seen in the per capita crime rate in Great Britain and Australia. It can be seen melodramatically in the former Soviet Union, last century Germany, and early 20th century Turkey.

6. Background checks on private sales will accomplish nothing as well. Many of the firearms used in crime are stolen. Those bought lawfully are by and large used that way. It is near impossible to enforce and would save no lives.

If you wish to know what I would suggest, it would be simple. Leave us alone. Lawful gun owners cause no problems and save lives that are not tracked on many occasions. We are most often able to take care of ourselves. It is not us who ask for your help, but instead are always willing to offer it to any who need it. We enjoy our sport shooting, hunting and our right to self defense. We cause little trouble unless it is brought to us, and are in general the most patriotic of citizens. We need less interference rather than more.

Another idea would be to ask the media to not release the name(s) of any shooter involved with a mass shooting. They want fame and denying them that would go farther than anything shy of getting rid of “gun free zones” in reducing the occurrence of these heinous crimes. No fame and no easy opportunities are the greatest deterrents and the reason.

I hate to repeat cliché terms, but the Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights. Without it we have no others. There is a direct line between that amendment and our freedom as citizens of a free nation. One of the hallmarks of the United States has always been that the people are stronger than the government. That is in place for a reason and should never be tampered with. It is the same reason that our nation still stands despite hardships that have broken other nations.

I swore an oath to the Constitution and the reason was to defend this one right so that anyone can defend their own rights. Should it be infringed upon unbearably as you are preparing to do, I will begin to wonder what it is I have been doing with my life. Have I wasted so many years? Only you can answer that now.

I simply want a life where I can enjoy those freedoms promised to me by my country. I wish this nation to remain place where I can teach my children responsibility and raise them with a sense of right and wrong. I want them to see an example now of a person in our government who will put aside all other things and look at the morality, history, and logic of his actions and choose accordingly. I ask you to provide that example for them by not stripping me of my rights because of a wrong I did not commit.

Sincerely,
SSgt George D. Clayton

To the president (as if he'll ever hear it), modified and resent to my reps as well as other reps, and posted where ever I can.