Reply from my Senator (Sarbanes) (D)

[greyhound]

So I got a reply from Senator Sarbanes (D) (MD) regarding my "gun control is a failure" letter so I thought I'd share.

Dear Skinny Canine:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to share your concerns about gun control laws. I often have to address complicated policy issues as a member of the United States Senate, and the views of my constituents are invaluable to me as I study the benefits and drawbacks of proposed legislation.

In regard to gun control measures, I believe we must strike a balance between the rights of lawful gun owners and reasonable efforts to stop gun-related violence. Therefore, I have voted in favor of legislation specifically aimed at criminals who use firearms. For example, I supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was signed into law on September 13, 1994. This legislation forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of nineteen assault-style weapons typically used in criminal activity. These weapons are more suitable for harming people than hunting or target shooting and are used by criminals to commit violent crimes against police officers and ordinary citizens.

In addition, February 28, 2003 marked the ninth anniversary of the Brady Law, which requires background checks before a firearm may be purchased. Evidence indicates that the Brady Law has worked. Since taking effect in 1994, the Brady Law has prevented more than 840,000 prohibited purchasers from buying firearms. Such prohibited purchasers include the mentally ill, convicted felons, and those under a restraining order or convicted of domestic violence.

While we may not fully agree on these issues, you may be sure that I will continue to consider the interests of hunters, target shooters, and people who use firearms for authorized security purposes should the Senate debate gun control legislation. Again, thank you for your thoughts on these issues, and please do not hesitate to contact me about other matters of importance to you.

With best regards.

Sincerely,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator

So I'm too tired of typing to opine right now, 'cept to say thats the first time I've heard the phrase "people who use firearms for authorized security purposes"....

 

[MikeK]

So, where is it?

Let me guess - we need to ban them for the children and to make MD and the U.S. safer places and to prevent future 'sniper' attacks and because there are so few gun-owners in MD that actually do anything politically that I don't give a darn what you-all think because you're not going to get me out of office. And of course, you don't need them to hunt with.

Was I close?

 

[greyhound]

MikeK-

Hit the enter key when I shouldna!!

Pretty close. Didn't mention the children but bang on with the hunters and target shooters.

This guy's been in office since 1979 or so (IIRC), so he's definately one of the career political bums we need to throw out - R & D!

 

[alan]

Greyhound:

While it's most likely a "form letter", still it is one hell of a lot more of a "reply" than I get from Arlen Specter.

 

[Dan from MI]

Where does 'hunting' and 'target shooting' appear in the 2nd Amendment, Paulie?

This reminds me of the BS letter I got from Debbie Stabusall.

Although it is slightly better than I get from my other sinator. Carl Lenin.

 

[bbrins]

Yep, definitely a form letter, i received the exact same letter, word for word. Cept' mine didn't say "Dear Skinny Canine" at the top.

 

[Standing Wolf]

For example, I supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was signed into law on September 13, 1994. This legislation forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of nineteen assault-style weapons typically used in criminal activity.

You need to fire your senator: he's a complete fool.

 

[bbrins]

You need to fire your senator: he's a complete fool.

Yeah, and he ain't the only one by a long shot. Talking to most Maryland politicians about gun control is like talking to a brick wall, but I bother the heck out of them anyway.

 

[greyhound]

. Talking to most Maryland politicians about gun control is like talking to a brick wall, but I bother the heck out of them anyway.

Can't wait for the responses from my letters to Sen. Mikulski, Rep. Cardin, and state Delegates Hollinger, Zirkin, and (Daddys Boy) Cardin.(all D)...

Believe me, we'd like to throw the bum out, but he's one of those permanently entrenched career pols who've been there forever and barely even have to campaign anymore.:banghead:

 

[geekWithA.45]

you may be sure that I will continue to consider the interests of hunters, target shooters, and people who use firearms for authorized security purposes

So, I guess you need authorization to defend your life, or be annointed from on high.

Well, let's put this name on the list of congress scum who need to be voted out of office.

Name, party,state, office held, next election, and why we need to vote the scum out.

 

[Al in Md]

Sarbanes is one of the most liberal senators in office. I don't know how he does it but he keeps a real low profile. His relection is almost automatic every election cycle. Al

 

[NY Patriot]

Greyhound, don't lose hope & definitely don't give in so easily!

When it comes to this fight, there are LOTS of other influential politicians & organizations that you can write to in order to make your voice heard!

Hence...


The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread!

 

[chaim]

Talking to most Maryland politicians about gun control is like talking to a brick wall

That's for sure.

Can't wait for the responses from my letters to Sen. Mikulski, Rep. Cardin, and state Delegates Hollinger, Zirkin, and (Daddys Boy) Cardin.(all D)...

Ben Cardin is definantly a class act among the sleeze in congress, however, he is unfortunately anti-gun.

He and his family are good people. He is one of the only congressmen who are in it for the right reason (he isn't there to just increase his power, he is actually trying to make a difference). When you meet with him he is one of the few congressmen who doesn't make you feel like you need to take a shower after being in his presence. He and his family are very involved in Baltimore area philanthropic causes. His wife just opened a Jewish school because the Conservative Jewish schools are too liberal for them and they don't want an Orthodox school (they aren't Orthodox), and this is more for the benefit of the community and not themselves since all their kids are fully grown and out of school. They are on the boards of several local charities.

He is a good man. However, with his politics don't expect much. He'd serve the community far better running a charity or something instead of his (often misguided) attempts to make the country better in the legislative arena.

Of course, being a good man with a good heart who really cares it just might be possible to eventually convince him if enough of us can get audiences with him to talk about guns. On the other hand, those who are idealists who really want to help the world can be the most dangerous of the anti-gun people sometimes too. Again, back to, he could far better serve the community running a charity or something instead of advocating for his (often misguided, though sometimes good) agenda in the legislative arena.

 

[gun-fucious]

heres a lovely picture of liberals at play:

the one of troll stature is Mikulski

 

[Bill Hook]

people who use firearms for authorized security purpose

You mean like JBTs?

 

[bogie]

Guys, what people need to understand is that many folks DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. Pick a simple fact or two, and reply to the letter. Include a reference cite. Keep it short and simple. But keep at it.

 

[bbrins]

the one of troll stature is Mikulski

 

[WvaBill]

heres a lovely picture of liberals at play:

And which one is an undeclared pres candidate?

 

[greyhound]

I will continue to consider the interests of hunters, target shooters, and people who use firearms for authorized security purposes

Okay, this statement has been bothering me for two days and I think I finally figured out what it is. These lefitst politicians want to pass "sane gun control laws" to "keep our citizens safe".

But, isn't it entirely likely that more of our citizens (who we are supposed to be "keeping safe") have been hurt or died by accidents while "hunting or target practicing" than have been accidently killed by legally owned weapons whose primary purpose was self-defense? If that's the case, Sarbanes would be making us "safer" by eliminating hunting and target shooting and promoting firearms kept for self defense.

I HATE hearing these leftists crowing that the hunters have nothing to fear about losing their guns; why can't for once they allow that LEGALLY owned firearms may have a proper role in self defense? I know its too much to hope that they ADVOCATE firearm ownership, but why can't they acknowledge the distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL ownership of firearms (not withstanding the 2A implications of that statement, but modern laws are what they are, right or wrong).

On another note, I agree with Chaim that there are some pricipled leftists out there, who aren't intent on grabbing power but sincerely believe that the ultra-left policies best fit the modern world. I personally have met with state Del. Bobby Zirkin (D) and found him to be a young man sincerely passionate about the leftist cause. I can respect that, but I will also do all I can to vote him out of office. The real problem is not whether someone has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, but whether they sincerely believe what they are saying, or are just trying to grab power. Political discourse is a good thing, the sham where people like Sarbanes don't even have to campaign anymore is a travesty.