jtischauser
I'm addicted to kicking ass
I just filled out the generic forms but didn't get a reply. Did you use something else or did I just not send a good enough message to get their attention?
Who has written politicians about gun control?
- Thread starter Dustin Cantrell
- Start date
Burk Cornelius
Regular guy
I used the form on their website but it took a while to get a response.Jesse Tischauser said:
They might have Googled you and saw your YouTube channel and decided it wasn't really worth replying to you
jspeligene
Well-Known Fanatic
US Rep James Lankford has a community meeting tonight at the new library, just east of MacArthur on NW 122nd. It is scheduled for 6 to 7 PM.
Scott Hearn
Well-Known Fanatic
Me too. But I did print them out and faxed them into their D.C. office too.Burk Cornelius said:
Adam Striegel
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 776
Dear Mr. Striegel:
Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your views.
When I was sworn in after being elected to the Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: "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."
The intent of the legislation at the time it was adopted was crystal clear. The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they believed a well-armed populace was the ultimate check on the power of the federal government. If one were to argue the Second Amendment does not prevent the federal government from abridging the individual right of citizens to own a gun, the second half of the Amendment is rendered meaningless.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in Commonplace Book, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I am very satisfied that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in a landmark 5-4 decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the Washington D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also positively affirmed that "(t)he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Before the Supreme Court heard this case, I joined former Vice President Cheney, 54 other Senators, and 250 Members of the House of Representatives â€" including all members of the Oklahoma delegation â€" in submitting an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard another Second Amendment case (McDonald v. City of Chicago) regarding Chicago's handgun ban. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment applies to state and local government gun laws. I signed another amicus brief filed in McDonald, asking the Supreme Court to affirm that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. You will be interested to know that when I signed the amicus brief in District of Colombia v. Heller, it had the support of more Members of Congress than any other amicus brief in history. I am now pleased to say the amicus brief filed in McDonald v. City of Chicago has even more signatories, with a total of 251 Members of the House of Representatives and 58 Senators signing on to the brief.
As your Senator, I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Again, thank you for your comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
United States Senator
Thank you for contacting me about the Second Amendment. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your views.
When I was sworn in after being elected to the Congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: "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."
The intent of the legislation at the time it was adopted was crystal clear. The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they believed a well-armed populace was the ultimate check on the power of the federal government. If one were to argue the Second Amendment does not prevent the federal government from abridging the individual right of citizens to own a gun, the second half of the Amendment is rendered meaningless.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in Commonplace Book, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I am very satisfied that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in a landmark 5-4 decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the Washington D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also positively affirmed that "(t)he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Before the Supreme Court heard this case, I joined former Vice President Cheney, 54 other Senators, and 250 Members of the House of Representatives â€" including all members of the Oklahoma delegation â€" in submitting an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard another Second Amendment case (McDonald v. City of Chicago) regarding Chicago's handgun ban. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment applies to state and local government gun laws. I signed another amicus brief filed in McDonald, asking the Supreme Court to affirm that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. You will be interested to know that when I signed the amicus brief in District of Colombia v. Heller, it had the support of more Members of Congress than any other amicus brief in history. I am now pleased to say the amicus brief filed in McDonald v. City of Chicago has even more signatories, with a total of 251 Members of the House of Representatives and 58 Senators signing on to the brief.
As your Senator, I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Again, thank you for your comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
United States Senator
jtischauser
I'm addicted to kicking ass
I finally got one of the Responses as well finally.
dennishoddy
Moderator
I got a response from senator inhof yesterday.
Burk Cornelius
Regular guy
I talked to both my Rep and Senator about the Firearms Protection Act (WY) and they both said they would be interested
Senator AJ Griffin said the following: "we are working to ensure that we have all needed legislation in place to ward off any attack of liberty from the federal government"
Senator AJ Griffin said the following: "we are working to ensure that we have all needed legislation in place to ward off any attack of liberty from the federal government"
jhenke
Well-Known Fanatic
Writing my politians in NY is like pissing in the wind, but I did anyway. I wrote my two Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand and my local Congressman, Tim Bishop. Schumer responded in 2 days telling me all the things he has done to help the 2A, but he thinks some chages need to be made. Gillibrand has yet to respond in 2 weeks now. Worst was Bishop flat out telling me an assualt gun ban needs to be enacted. As he put it "once the law of the land". Wow, a whole 10 years. I rebuttled him to fact check and called him out on some points he made, and a week later have heard no more.
jtischauser
I'm addicted to kicking ass
jhenke said:
I'd move the Eff outta that crap! That is saddening.
jhenke
Well-Known Fanatic
Tell me about it. This idiot Cuomo wants stricter gun laws. We already have one of the worst gun ban laws in the country. 10 round mags, pinned stocks and muzzlebreaks, only muzzlebreaks. I had to invest in preban 30 round old mags.
dennishoddy
Moderator
All you can do is keep up the fight. Your odds are slim, but at least your a voice speaking up. Thanks.jhenke said:
Spiff
Semi-Pro
I wrote letters to the TX and OK congress critters about a week ago. Fortunately we're in pretty good company as far as most of those go, and Ted Cruz, our new senator here, looks to be a winner.
dennishoddy
Moderator
Keep up the pressure! The Senate is going to be the tipping point, as they are more anti gun. (note I didn't point out a political affiliation)
Even though they are not in your state, email the anti's in the Senate and remind them they are United States Senators, not Senators in some district. Every voice counts! CALL, Email, do whatever.
Biden already has his agenda in mind, and its going to take all of the gun owners to make this debacle into a positive instead of a negative.
Biden, the bufoon is only putting on these hearings to show he is falsly interested in hearing both sides. What a joke.
Even though they are not in your state, email the anti's in the Senate and remind them they are United States Senators, not Senators in some district. Every voice counts! CALL, Email, do whatever.
Biden already has his agenda in mind, and its going to take all of the gun owners to make this debacle into a positive instead of a negative.
Biden, the bufoon is only putting on these hearings to show he is falsly interested in hearing both sides. What a joke.
StealthESW
Well-Known Fanatic
I sent in my letters.
Adam Striegel
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 776
I've gotten letters back from everyone I emailed and they're all saying they're not going to support any kind of ban or restrictions.
dennishoddy
Moderator
From what I understand, he does not take direct questions from the audiance. All questions are put into a container, and he pulls them out. No rebuttals from the crowd. He has recieved a lot of negative comments from this, so it may change. Who knows?Jeff Speligene said:
January 22, 2013
Dear Mr. Wall,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about gun rights. While some Americans simply sit by and hope things will change, I appreciate the time you took to engage yourself in this important matter of Constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens. As an outdoorsman and member of the NRA, I am acutely aware of the many conditions and stipulations which gun owners must meet when exercising this basic constitutional right. From the first days of our nation's independence, American families have owned and kept guns in their private residences. Millions of citizens also hunt each year across the United States.
In recent days, horrific crimes have been committed across the country with guns. These crimes have been committed by mentally and emotionally unstable individuals with evil intent. My heart breaks for families in cities across America that are affected by violence of any type. The collapse of the traditional family structure, the intensity of violent video games, unlimited internet access, and societal stress have combined to move anti-social individuals to mass murder. Furthermore, society has glorified violence on television and in the movies.
All too often, responsible gun owners are punished for the wrongdoing of criminals. Law-abiding citizens should not have their rights infringed, but criminals should not be allowed to purchase guns. We must focus on mental health initiatives, law enforcement, and criminals' access to firearms instead of targeting hunters, responsible gun owners, and gun manufacturers.
Some feel that crime would end if guns were restricted. This theory has been demonstrated as false in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where gun laws are strict, but violent crime is rampant. I have children in school; I understand the anxiety of dropping off your kids after another school shooting. But, I want to help our nation solve the problem, not just "do something." Simple answers will not fix this complex family issue. It is right to have an honest and open conversation about gun violence, but our conclusions must protect our liberty and start our country down the path of healing.
It is important to refer to previously passed Congressional gun control measures to determine why they were enacted, and if these laws resulted in decreased violence. The National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 passed following prohibition to make the chosen weapons of "gangsters," most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns, more difficult to acquire. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was passed following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy. The GCA made regulations stricter on convicted felons, illegal immigrants, mentally unstable individuals, and others. The Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a database to prevent firearm sales to prohibited individuals.
As you may know, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has proposed legislation to renew the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004. The original assault weapon ban was part of a broader, significant piece of legislation; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The assault weapon ban was enacted in the wake of a January 17, 1989 school shooting as well as the escalating violence of the 1980's and early 1990's turf and drug wars waged by urban gangs. However, it is important to note that during the life of the assault weapon ban there were at least 30 school shootings, demonstrating that the senseless school shootings and other acts of mass murder cannot continue. Removing one type of weapon will not eliminate school violence.
As the 113th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your suggestions and comments with me. Please, contact me via email for a faster response. To keep up with my work in Congress, please visit my website at www.lankford.house.gov and sign up to receive updates at www.lankford.house.gov/enewsletter.
In God We Trust,
James Lankford
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Dear Mr. Wall,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about gun rights. While some Americans simply sit by and hope things will change, I appreciate the time you took to engage yourself in this important matter of Constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens. As an outdoorsman and member of the NRA, I am acutely aware of the many conditions and stipulations which gun owners must meet when exercising this basic constitutional right. From the first days of our nation's independence, American families have owned and kept guns in their private residences. Millions of citizens also hunt each year across the United States.
In recent days, horrific crimes have been committed across the country with guns. These crimes have been committed by mentally and emotionally unstable individuals with evil intent. My heart breaks for families in cities across America that are affected by violence of any type. The collapse of the traditional family structure, the intensity of violent video games, unlimited internet access, and societal stress have combined to move anti-social individuals to mass murder. Furthermore, society has glorified violence on television and in the movies.
All too often, responsible gun owners are punished for the wrongdoing of criminals. Law-abiding citizens should not have their rights infringed, but criminals should not be allowed to purchase guns. We must focus on mental health initiatives, law enforcement, and criminals' access to firearms instead of targeting hunters, responsible gun owners, and gun manufacturers.
Some feel that crime would end if guns were restricted. This theory has been demonstrated as false in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where gun laws are strict, but violent crime is rampant. I have children in school; I understand the anxiety of dropping off your kids after another school shooting. But, I want to help our nation solve the problem, not just "do something." Simple answers will not fix this complex family issue. It is right to have an honest and open conversation about gun violence, but our conclusions must protect our liberty and start our country down the path of healing.
It is important to refer to previously passed Congressional gun control measures to determine why they were enacted, and if these laws resulted in decreased violence. The National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 passed following prohibition to make the chosen weapons of "gangsters," most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns, more difficult to acquire. The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was passed following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy. The GCA made regulations stricter on convicted felons, illegal immigrants, mentally unstable individuals, and others. The Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a database to prevent firearm sales to prohibited individuals.
As you may know, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has proposed legislation to renew the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004. The original assault weapon ban was part of a broader, significant piece of legislation; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The assault weapon ban was enacted in the wake of a January 17, 1989 school shooting as well as the escalating violence of the 1980's and early 1990's turf and drug wars waged by urban gangs. However, it is important to note that during the life of the assault weapon ban there were at least 30 school shootings, demonstrating that the senseless school shootings and other acts of mass murder cannot continue. Removing one type of weapon will not eliminate school violence.
As the 113th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your suggestions and comments with me. Please, contact me via email for a faster response. To keep up with my work in Congress, please visit my website at www.lankford.house.gov and sign up to receive updates at www.lankford.house.gov/enewsletter.
In God We Trust,
James Lankford
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Dustin Cantrell
Well-Known Fanatic
I received a letter back from Frank Lucas today.
I emailed all of the OK senators recently about SB548. I received an email back from the office of Senator Sykes thanking me for the email and asking me to reply with my address and phone number. I did so. I'm not sure the reasoning of asking for my address and phone number. Maybe Senator Sykes would like to mail me a response or call and speak with me, or maybe they are just wanting personal information so that they can document citizens that are in support of the bill.
I emailed all of the OK senators recently about SB548. I received an email back from the office of Senator Sykes thanking me for the email and asking me to reply with my address and phone number. I did so. I'm not sure the reasoning of asking for my address and phone number. Maybe Senator Sykes would like to mail me a response or call and speak with me, or maybe they are just wanting personal information so that they can document citizens that are in support of the bill.
