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

Response To Tom Coburn Regarding ...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ConstitutionCowboy, Jan 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Mar 15, 2006
    ...This from the Washington Post

    Here's the letter I wrote to Senator Coburn:

    With all due respect to the office you hold, I must ask if you are nuts. Are you nuts?

    You were sent to Congress by the people of Oklahoma, among other reasons, to protect our inalienable rights; specifically, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Going along with anti-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms legislators to call for background checks on every arms sale is antithetical to liberty with its direct infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    In the first place, the attempt to keep arms out of the hands of proven violent criminals is an abject failure. Calling for additional background checks will not reduce crime just like the current background checks do not reduce crime. Arms are not kept out of the hands of violent criminals with laws.

    I've heard too much common sense come out of your mouth to know you know the following common sense: Only keeping violent criminals who have not been executed locked up, or institutionalized, or under full-time guardianship will keep violent felons from committing violent crime - regardless of the instrumentality.

    The mere existence of the word "recidivism" is all the proof one needs to know that no law can keep arms out of the hands of violent criminals. All one can do is to physically keep the hands of the violent criminals away from arms.

    If you wish to support the Second Amendment, propose legislation to remove the Feral(Federal) Government from its unconstitutional infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Securing violent criminals away from arms - or any other instrumentality able to be misused violently - is the responsibility of the several states and law exists in each state to accomplish that, needing only minor modification to extend sentencing terms to assure no adjudicated violent criminal is ever released until it can be proven, on an individual basis, that each violent criminal will no longer commit or threaten to commit violent crime.

    Your current position on any proposed or existing background checks on all free people who wish to procure arms demonstrates you have no regard for the Second Amendment, and brings into question your stance on any and all the rights of free people.

    Before I learned of your stance on these background checks, I thought you were a glass of clean water sitting next to all those glasses full of dirty water populating the halls of Congress. Now that you've allowed that one drop of dirty water into your glass, well, how can your glass of water be considered clean?

    You are a disappointment to me and have dropped the ball We the People of Oklahoma so trustingly handed you when we voted for you to represent our conservative Oklahoma and Godly values.

    I wrote this letter not merely to admonish and berate you. I wrote this letter to inform you that you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by taking the opportunity to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Consider the oath you took to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America and honor yourself by honoring that oath.

    As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." The same should apply to legislation.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page