Who has written politicians about gun control?

[Peichor]

I wrote mine. I was not nearly as eloquent as any of you guys tho. I guess I will just keep sending more. Congress.org makes it pretty easy to fire one off quick.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Adam Striegel]

I've written both senators and the house rep for my district.

 

[jtischauser]

I sent a quick one to each of the individuals that Dennis posted links for. I forgot to invite them out to a match though damnit!

Anybody that gets an elected official out to shoot a match gets free life membership to the forum!

 

[Dustin Cantrell]

I got a letter back today. While she didn't respond with her thoughts on the issues, at least it shows that somebody at her office is reading the letters and taking note of our thoughts. I was pretty damn pleased to get a letter back. Let's keep sending those letters and emails!

 

[threegungeezer]

I can tell from your letter that she will vote for the gun control in the name of "school security". You might remind her that the murderer that prepetrated this masacre voilated numerous state and federal laws and that did not stop him. You also might want to remind her of Ben Franklin's qoute" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

 

[Jonathan Waits]

I wrote my rep, and both my senators with this:

My name is Jonathan Waits, I am a United States Navy veteran. At the age of 18 I was handed the responsibility for numerous F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets priced at $55.2 Million a piece. Along with countless other men and women my age, we protected and defended this country responsibly with weapons far greater than any other weapon. For Congress to say that I no longer am responsible enough to handle a pistol or rifle or shotgun is foolish, protectionist speech. I am urging you to please oppose both the Assault Weapons ban being introduced by Diane Feinstein AS WELL AS the Magazine Ban being introduced by Dianna DeGette. I have come to understand that some Republicans even support this later bill, even Sen. Graham. Please do not support these "feel good" laws that will do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves or our children, and will only serve as a stepping stone to disarmament. Thank you sir.

 

[dennishoddy]

Nice.

 

[jtischauser]

I wrote my rep, and both my senators with this:

My name is Jonathan Waits, I am a United States Navy veteran. At the age of 18 I was handed the responsibility for numerous F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets priced at $55.2 Million a piece. Along with countless other men and women my age, we protected and defended this country responsibly with weapons far greater than any other weapon. For Congress to say that I no longer am responsible enough to handle a pistol or rifle or shotgun is foolish, protectionist speech. I am urging you to please oppose both the Assault Weapons ban being introduced by Diane Feinstein AS WELL AS the Magazine Ban being introduced by Dianna DeGette. I have come to understand that some Republicans even support this later bill, even Sen. Graham. Please do not support these "feel good" laws that will do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves or our children, and will only serve as a stepping stone to disarmament. Thank you sir.

I'm gonna use this one next time except for the F18 part. They wouldn't let me near that stuff.

 

[Dustin Cantrell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whB9kMnWBxE

http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/2013/01/retaining-our-freedoms-is-possible-but.html

 

[dennishoddy]

I certainly hope that's true Dustin.

 

[Troy]

I wrote my Coburn and Cole last week, I tried to write as much as I could about my concerns while trying to keep it short, I don't want to take up too much of their time so they can read others. I will right them again this week, this time it's going to be short and sweet, "No compromise", I may add just a few more words, but I figure they have heard it all by now. I'll be contacting my state rep Dan Fisher, but being my pastor, I know without a doubt he feels the same as we do.

 

[Scott Hearn]

Got a response back from Inhoff today.

Dear Mr. Hearn:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragedy that took place December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut. As your Senator in Washington, D.C., I appreciate hearing from you.

My thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by the events that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. What occurred was absolutely senseless, and a tragedy devoid of explanation. We must work with experts in law enforcement and the mental health field to understand this heinous crime and examine ways to prevent future incidents.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms. I stand firm in my support of this right. Countless lives are saved each year as a result of citizens exercising the right of self defense.

Again, thank you for your comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.





Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

 

[Wall]

Dear Mr. Wall:

Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.

In 1994, the assault weapons ban established a comprehensive regulatory scheme of prohibiting the manufacture, transfer, or possession of assault weapons, as well as the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds. These magazines are used by millions of Americans and are customary in handguns and other firearms. Nineteen specific weapons and their copycats were banned by the original legislation signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. The weapons ban was contained in a larger Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004. As a member of the House of Representatives in 1994, I voted against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 because of the undue restrictions on weapons, among other reasons.

Semi-automatic assault weapons function similarly to other semi-automatic firearms, as they fire one round per pull of the trigger. It is important to note that under the assault weapons ban, the defining features of a semi-automatic assault weapon are mostly cosmetic. For example, a handgun is classified as a semi-automatic assault weapon if its magazine is visible, despite the fact that it fires one bullet per pull of the trigger and the speed of fire remains the same. Therefore, the law banned certain guns that are functionally identical to other weapons that are still considered to be legal.

While supporters of the ban may point out that the violent crime rate dropped after the 1994 ban, they do not mention that violent crime was dropping before the ban was instituted in 1994 and that gun ownership, including ownership of newer designs of the banned weapons, rose during that same time period. It is also important to note that these weapons were rarely used in the commission of crimes before the 1994 ban.

Additionally, a provision of the 1994 law required a study of the effectiveness of the weapons ban. The Congressional study showed that, according to police reports and federal felon surveys, the type of weapons banned in 1994 were only used in one to two percent of violent crimes. Murders committed by knives, clubs, and bare hands outnumbered murders by weapons 20 to one. According to a recent study, existing data does not show whether the number of people shot and killed with semi-automatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004).

Should any attempt be made to reinstate the semi-automatic assault weapons ban, I will strongly oppose it. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to use their firearms for hunting, marksmanship, and self-defense. The statistics demonstrate that a true ban on these weapons will not significantly decrease crime but will significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When I was sworn in as a member of Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As your representative in the Senate, I will continue to staunchly oppose any attempt to tamper with our nation's Constitution or undermine our Second Amendment rights.



Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

 

[threegungeezer]

Dear Mr. Wall:

Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.

In 1994, the assault weapons ban established a comprehensive regulatory scheme of prohibiting the manufacture, transfer, or possession of assault weapons, as well as the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds. These magazines are used by millions of Americans and are customary in handguns and other firearms. Nineteen specific weapons and their copycats were banned by the original legislation signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. The weapons ban was contained in a larger Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004. As a member of the House of Representatives in 1994, I voted against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 because of the undue restrictions on weapons, among other reasons.

Semi-automatic assault weapons function similarly to other semi-automatic firearms, as they fire one round per pull of the trigger. It is important to note that under the assault weapons ban, the defining features of a semi-automatic assault weapon are mostly cosmetic. For example, a handgun is classified as a semi-automatic assault weapon if its magazine is visible, despite the fact that it fires one bullet per pull of the trigger and the speed of fire remains the same. Therefore, the law banned certain guns that are functionally identical to other weapons that are still considered to be legal.

While supporters of the ban may point out that the violent crime rate dropped after the 1994 ban, they do not mention that violent crime was dropping before the ban was instituted in 1994 and that gun ownership, including ownership of newer designs of the banned weapons, rose during that same time period. It is also important to note that these weapons were rarely used in the commission of crimes before the 1994 ban.

Additionally, a provision of the 1994 law required a study of the effectiveness of the weapons ban. The Congressional study showed that, according to police reports and federal felon surveys, the type of weapons banned in 1994 were only used in one to two percent of violent crimes. Murders committed by knives, clubs, and bare hands outnumbered murders by weapons 20 to one. According to a recent study, existing data does not show whether the number of people shot and killed with semi-automatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004).

Should any attempt be made to reinstate the semi-automatic assault weapons ban, I will strongly oppose it. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to use their firearms for hunting, marksmanship, and self-defense. The statistics demonstrate that a true ban on these weapons will not significantly decrease crime but will significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When I was sworn in as a member of Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As your representative in the Senate, I will continue to staunchly oppose any attempt to tamper with our nation's Constitution or undermine our Second Amendment rights.



Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

Now, that is how a supporter of the second amendment talks!

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Dear Mr. Cornelius:

Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.

In 1994, the assault weapons ban established a comprehensive regulatory scheme of prohibiting the manufacture, transfer, or possession of assault weapons, as well as the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds. These magazines are used by millions of Americans and are customary in handguns and other firearms. Nineteen specific weapons and their copycats were banned by the original legislation signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. The weapons ban was contained in a larger Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004. As a member of the House of Representatives in 1994, I voted against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 because of the undue restrictions on weapons, among other reasons.

Semi-automatic assault weapons function similarly to other semi-automatic firearms, as they fire one round per pull of the trigger. It is important to note that under the assault weapons ban, the defining features of a semi-automatic assault weapon are mostly cosmetic. For example, a handgun is classified as a semi-automatic assault weapon if its magazine is visible, despite the fact that it fires one bullet per pull of the trigger and the speed of fire remains the same. Therefore, the law banned certain guns that are functionally identical to other weapons that are still considered to be legal.

While supporters of the ban may point out that the violent crime rate dropped after the 1994 ban, they do not mention that violent crime was dropping before the ban was instituted in 1994 and that gun ownership, including ownership of newer designs of the banned weapons, rose during that same time period. It is also important to note that these weapons were rarely used in the commission of crimes before the 1994 ban.

Additionally, a provision of the 1994 law required a study of the effectiveness of the weapons ban. The Congressional study showed that, according to police reports and federal felon surveys, the type of weapons banned in 1994 were only used in one to two percent of violent crimes. Murders committed by knives, clubs, and bare hands outnumbered murders by weapons 20 to one. According to a recent study, existing data does not show whether the number of people shot and killed with semi-automatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004).

Should any attempt be made to reinstate the semi-automatic assault weapons ban, I will strongly oppose it. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to use their firearms for hunting, marksmanship, and self-defense. The statistics demonstrate that a true ban on these weapons will not significantly decrease crime but will significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When I was sworn in as a member of Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As your representative in the Senate, I will continue to staunchly oppose any attempt to tamper with our nation's Constitution or undermine our Second Amendment rights.



Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

 

[Adam Striegel]

Dear Mr. Cornelius:

......

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

Did he not mention anything about all the erotic letters you've been sending him?

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Did he not mention anything about all the erotic letters pictures you've been sending him?

 

[Adam Striegel]

Did he not mention anything about all the erotic letters pictures you've been sending him?

Now there's a man that knows how to get things done politically.

 

[jtischauser]

How are you guys contacting your reps?

 

[Burk Cornelius]

How are you guys contacting your reps?

I use email because that's the method that each of them recommend on their websites. Snail mail has to go through so much screening that it can take weeks, or months, for it to make it to their desk