1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Activism' started by hso, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. BLB68

    BLB68 Active Member

    May 18, 2008
    Someone send this guy a dictionary.
  2. jonc

    jonc New Member

    Jul 8, 2008
    got one today too. It must not have been a form letter today cuase mine was a little different
  3. cluck

    cluck New Member

    Jun 23, 2010
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    Honest response. I didn't expect this. I wonder when I will get my response from him. It's a little encouraging that my representative, despite his party affiliation, is not just spewing the same anti drivel: "I respect the second amendment BUT....".

    "Each of us should have the expectation of safety in our daily lives."
    This is the only statement that seems ignorant to me. Safety is an illusion.
    If his votes match his stated position, I may have to vote for him next time.
  4. BLB68

    BLB68 Active Member

    May 18, 2008
    Trying to redefine the word "bear" seems a bit suspect to me. Probably will have to wait and see how he votes on things to be sure of his position.
  5. blahpony

    blahpony New Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Leesburg VA
    Here is a response from VA senator Tim Kaine.

    Bolding is mine.

    BBQJOE Active Member

    Mar 13, 2007
    Paul Gosar AZ house of reps

    I've been sending all kinds of emails, like the rest of you.
    here is Paul Gosar's response to my email asking him to oppose any new firearm legislation, as well as a promise to do my best to have someone else fill his seat if he does.

    Dear Mr. Heslin,

    Thank you for contacting me about the tragic events that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. This tragedy affected so many, and I am always glad to hear your thoughts, concerns, and opinions on the matter.

    First, my thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. My deepest sympathies are with the families and loved ones of the staff and students who were killed or injured and those who witnessed this horrific event. We mourn the loss of the school children and adults whose lives were claimed by the heartbreaking acts on December 14, 2012.

    We must now pause and reflect as to how we can prevent a repeat of the events in Newtown, Connecticut while preserving our liberties and values, including the right to bear arms. Our Constitution recognizes certain core liberties that we are endowed with by God—not by the Federal government. The right to defend oneself and one's family and property are among these. The founders of this country knew that having capable citizens willing to take up arms to defend the Republic was essential. For that reason, each individual was given the right to own, possess and responsibly use firearms.

    In an effort to prevent other instances like the events in Newtown, we must also engage in a broader discussion that includes increased access to mental health care services. This should include educating the public about the warning signs of those who would harm themselves and others and addressing the stigma related to diagnosis and treatment. Most individuals with severe and persistent mental illness will not commit violent crimes but we need a system in place to recognize and intervene when a risk is posed.

    It is crucial that we enforce existing gun laws already on the books. It is my hope that this tragedy results in solutions designed to prevent other similar occurrences.

    Irresponsible and criminal use of arms cannot be tolerated, but I believe that using new gun control laws to address this case and others like it would be unwise and ineffective. The federal government must not sink to the lowest common denominator to punish responsible citizens and to infringe on Constitutional rights. I find it distasteful that some people seek to capitalize on a tragedy in order to trample on our Constitution for political gain.

    Please know that as your Congressman, I fully support Second Amendment rights and the right to own and carry firearms in a responsible manner. I will oppose any unconstitutional efforts by the federal government to infringe upon Second Amendment rights. I have been a life-long supporter of responsible gun ownership. I have also been a hunter for most of my life, and I am well aware of our rights and duties relative to firearms. We must remain vigilant and enforce all of our constitutional rights, not simply pick and choose the ones we like. Our constitutional rights are not dependent upon which president, or which Congress, is in office.

    Again, I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. It is a pleasure to serve Arizona as part of its Congressional Delegation. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
  7. MaterDei

    MaterDei Senior Member

    Sep 23, 2003
    This is Ted Poe's response to an email I sent. Emphasis is my own...

    Dear Mr. MaterDei:

    Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on firearms and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

    The tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut was unspeakable, incomprehensible and unimaginable evil. There are no words that can offer enough comfort and solace to a grieving community. Since that tragedy, there have been calls for immediate action ranging from legislation for more and less gun control and a national discussion on mental health.

    I am an ardent supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment. As a former prosecutor and judge, I have tried many shooters in criminal cases, but never a gun. Some may misplace blame on videogames, Hollywood, or the media, but the blame should always be on the shooter. Nations, like Mexico, that have outlawed guns completely have not seen a decline in gun-related deaths. Additionally, Fox News reported that Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America, but leads the nation in gun violence.

    On January 16, 2013, the Administration issued 23 actions that they plan to take to address gun violence. Ranging from strengthening background checks to launching a national responsible gun ownership campaign, all actions are targeted to facilitate gun control. I do not believe executive orders are the way to control gun violence. The focus of any discussion or action must be on the individual, and I look forward to having that discussion with my colleagues in Congress.

    Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the 2nd District, please refer to my website: poe.house.gov. While you are visiting the website, be sure to sign up for my electronic newsletter.

    God and Texas,

  8. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Participating Member

    Mar 16, 2008
    I wrote both my senators after the Newtown shooting, expressing my hope that they would focus their efforts on stopping these deranged individuals, rather than on weapons, and urging them not to squander this opportunity to address the mental health system and involuntary commitment of certain individuals, and instead jump on the easy and very public bandwagon of gun control.

    Alas, Sen. Mark Warner chose to ignore that plea, and do just that. He has expressed support for Diane Feinstein's ASW ban (never mind that the last one had no effect whatever on crime, nor did it prevent mass shootings like Columbine). And in an interview recently, he said:

    I have written back to his office since reading this, and informed him that I will never vote for him again, and that I will now spend time and money to make certain he loses his seat come the next election, and if he ever runs for public office again, I'll do it all over again.

    Just as I couldn't support John McCain, after McCain-Feingold unconstitutionally restricted free speech, I can no longer support him. I cannot and will not support ANY politician who supports blatantly unconstitutional legislation, undermining my rights and liberties.

    Maybe if he gets enough letters making it clear he's committing political suicide, supporting Feinstein's ASW ban in a state like Virginia, he'll rethink his support for that bill. I'm not holding my breath, but if you live in Virginia, write to him and let him know he's playing with fire on this one.
  9. NosaMSirhC

    NosaMSirhC New Member

    Nov 9, 2009
    I didn't vote for Mark Warner to begin with. I will make absolutely sure that I devote time and treasure to unseat him.

    I can only imagine what a response from Senator Kaine's office will read like...

    Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk HD
  10. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Participating Member

    Mar 16, 2008
    Well, I tend to vote republican more than democrat. But Warner was one of the few seemingly genuine moderate, centrist democrats I could support. No more. As I said, I don't want to be a single issue voter, but when a politician crosses the line into supporting blatantly unconstitutional laws, then he's crossed a line that makes it impossible for me to support him.
  11. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Mentor

    Dec 19, 2006
    Senator Jeff Seesions of Alabama is strongly in the pro-gun,pro-second Amendment category.
  12. nfafan

    nfafan New Member

    Oct 12, 2009
    Sen Bob Casey of PA - his anti-gun auto-reply

    Meanwhile, my reply back to the most boring senator in the known universe after his auto-reply;

    Dear Mr. Casey,

    Thank you for the acknowledgement of our communications with your auto-reply, but I think we have a problem here - and I know that you don’t want to be a problem to your constituency here in Pennsylvania.

    First off to your opening points, Yes – we are ALL horrified and repulsed by the events in Newtown.

    But… What was being hidden behind a smokescreen of anti-gun rhetoric is the fact that a vidiot-gaming nutcase took his mother’s LEGAL guns - purchased and owned LEGALLY under onerous Connecticut laws – and then ILLEGALLY used them to ILLEGALLY kill his own mother before ILLEGALLY killing the Sandy Hook children.

    What part of ILLEGAL action is not understood here?

    The mother’s body hadn’t even officially been discovered yet before Biden’s anti-gun ghouls were already in the cameras relishing the Sandy Hook blood to push their agenda against LEGAL guns.

    I am not going to get into the Second Amendment/Founding Fathers yadda yadda – as I know that YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND exactly what “shall not be infringed” means. And we intend to hold you to it.

    If it appears you did not understand “shall not be infringed”, we – as your employers here in PA - will arrange during the next election to give you ample time away from work to learn about the Second Amendment.

    To be sure; YOU do not have the political capital to survive going against US voters here in Pennsylvania - your EMPLOYERS - the ones who ELECTED YOU.
    As for the others;

    • Crazy Uncle Joe Biden has NOTHING to lose with his dimwitted double-barrel blathering – he’ll fade into the sunset to go play pinochle with wacky Howard Dean.
    • Obama has NOTHING to lose; he will dethrone Klinton as the official orator of the left.
    • Chuck Schumer will remain “in like Flynt” unless proven to be an agent for Hamas.
    • Sens Feinswine and Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi are entrenched forever; ditsy ************ns will gladly re-elect their three Macbethian witches even with video proof of a boiling cauldron of dead gay babies.

    But for you; we will be watching YOUR vote, and we too, will vote. So unless YOU intend for your privileged Senate career to end with a run for election as a dogcatcher – you need to stand tall and VOTE AGAINST ANY new gun control laws of any kind introduced in the Senate.

    Understand that this isn’t like the pointless “ban laws” of the past – we have the Internet now for fast, mass communications. I intend to make sure my message to YOU is posted to every message board I know of so that fellow gun owners know of this.

    We are and will be watching – and voting.


    Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:

    Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

    As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

    The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.

    As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.

    Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

    On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.

    This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.

    Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

    For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

    Bob Casey
    United States Senator

    P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
    In a victim nation, a classroom full of dead children is morally superior to a teacher holding a smoking gun knowing she just protected her students.
  13. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    Feb 8, 2013
    Louisville, Ky.
    Typical reply from the senator. But your reply to him was fantastic!
  14. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Mentor

    Oct 10, 2006
    Deep in the valley
    Letter sent to Va 6'th District Mr. Robert Goodlatte

    Mr. Goodlatte;

    I write you as a citizen who is gravely concerned about the attitudes being taken towards American citizens and their rights and freedoms. While I am both angered and saddened by the actions of a few loose cannons in our society this cannot and must not be allowed to change the core beliefs upon which this Nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia were founded.

    I would like for you to stand strong against the poorly considered and emotionally driven gun control policies being rushed forward and ramrodded through the judicial process without consideration as to the economic and legal impacts of the vast majority of citizens who have not, and will never, commit any sort of crimes.

    Universal background checks sound like a good idea, but anyone who doubts the abuse that would follow such a de facto gun registration list should study more history including the confiscation actions taken by California in the 1990s even after they expressly promised no such actions would happen.

    Modern semi-automatic rifles (media labeled with the pejorative "Assault weapons") and their magazines are extremely common, middle-of-the-road equipment, and exactly the kind of items that the Second Amendment protects. A vote to ban or restrict either is a vote against our own Bill of Rights.

    As a constituent, I expect that you will do me the courtesy of letting me know how you are going to vote on gun-control bills that institute universal background checks or that ban or restrict either so called "assault weapons" or their magazines.
  15. dukelubas

    dukelubas New Member

    Feb 12, 2013
    Philly, PA
    I received the same exact response yesterday and it made my blood boil. I've been going over my response in my head ever since and I keep re-writing it (in my head) going from shear raging passion to a more rational response. I fear that even responding will fall on deaf ears. HOW DO WE GET THROUGH TO THESE PEOPLE? Something tells me that we are NOT going to change an anti's mind no matter how much we try and even IF we were to get them to sway to pro, it'll only be to save their hide so they can get re-elected. Holding a vote over a representative's head is not what I call a good compromise.

    On another note, here's the response I received from Toomey. A bit better, but it doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

    Dear [redacted],

    Thank you for contacting me about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.

    As you may know, January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a variety of gun policy measures in response to the Newtown, CT killings. I therefore value knowing your views on this important issue, which is important to me as I carefully review the President's proposals. Like many Pennsylvanians, I believe that Second Amendment rights are important and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety. I also believe that people who use guns in an illegal manner or harm others with them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    That said, we have consistently observed that mass killings are the result of serious mental illness. We therefore need to better protect ourselves from mentally ill individuals who seek to carry out such atrocities, including improved background checks. We also need to review and improve how we take care of the mentally ill. As I continue working with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle on public safety, please be assured that I will keep your views about firearms in mind.

    Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.


    Pat Toomey
    U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
  16. Pilot

    Pilot Mentor

    Dec 29, 2002
    I received the same responses after two seperate emails to Casey, and one to Toomey. I agree, Toomey's isn't much better.

    I also sent a few emails to Jim Gerlach, my Rep, and his wasn't much better.

    So, he doesn't vow to uphold the Second Amendment, he will weight the costs and benefits against the concerns and views of his constituents. Meaning if he perceives many of his constituents are for gun bans, he will vote for them even if it violates the 2A. Just great. :mad:
  17. viper7342

    viper7342 New Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    In an underground bunker hiding from the STUPID LI
    Response to my letter from Senator Joe Donnelly

    The following is a response to the email message I sent to Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana, it is better than I thought it would be especially since he is a Democrat, I havent as yet received any response from my other Senator.

    Dear Mr. Montgomery,

    I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Like all Americans, I was shaken to my core by the senseless murders of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. It is only reasonable for all of us to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of a tragedy like that happening again.

    Whether a gun owner or not, a Democrat or a Republican, everyone would agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. My concern is not those who follow the law, but those who do not. For this reason, I will not support legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons to those who obey the law. I will, however, give serious consideration to proposals that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, while preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the U.S. Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website
  18. LNK

    LNK Member

    Dec 21, 2010
    SE MA Soon Somewhere else
    Elizabeth Warren and My Response

    Dear LNK,

    Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

    Like millions of people across the country, I was heartbroken by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. I do not know how to explain the deaths of twenty innocent children or why six heroic teachers had to make the ultimate sacrifice for their students.

    I also grew up in family that used guns. My older brothers hunted, and I learned to shoot when I was in grade school. I have great respect for the role that hunting and guns play in many communities across the country and believe there is a place for responsible gun ownership in our society. But I also don't think anyone needs military-grade assault weapons to hunt or Rambo-style high capacity magazines to protect their family from intruders.

    That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired ban on federal assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I support those efforts as well.

    There is no one way to stop gun violence, and there is certainly room for disagreement on the steps that we should take. But I hope that we can agree that we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to take the steps we can to stop the violence. I believe that a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals represent a responsible path forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.



    Dear Elizabeth,

    Thank you for your response. I see we are going to disagree about the the steps needed to prevent further tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Let me ask you a simple question. Were you intent on committing a heinous crime like Sandy Hook, (remember this is hypothetical), and there were two places just about the same. Would you choose the one where there were guarantees that your victims could not fight back, or would you choose the one where they might be armed people to resist? The fact that you think you can legislate behavior is ridiculous! Might as well pass a law banning mass shootings. It will accomplish the same thing. I know it is easier to punish law abiding citizens than it is to tackle a real problem. Like mental health.

    I must tell you that as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I took a very similar oath that you did as a United States Senator. I don't believe the Oath has an expiration date. Let me refresh your memory, yours-

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."


    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    After reading your response, I couldn't help but question my readings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So I read them again. I can't seem to find the part about hunting. As a lawyer you must have had some classes on the Constitution? Did you not read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? I am pretty sure the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    I am pretty sure the Founders intended the Second amendment to remind those in "power" of the peoples right to bear arms. You seem willing to restrict that right. There is a process in the Constitution to change the Constitution. Feel free to follow that route if you so choose. By subverting that process by incremental legislation is the wrong path. I hope you take the time to do some reading and thinking for yourself, instead of being a rubber stamp to the people in office, whichever party they belong to.

    Thank you for your time,
    United States Citizen
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
  19. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 8, 2008
    Southern Virginia
    Keep at it my friend. Organize against her if you have to. No politician wants to be defeated and have to get a real job.
  20. Sapper771

    Sapper771 Participating Member

    Feb 24, 2007
    11 up and 3 down
    Excellent reply !

Share This Page