Emailed both of my Senator's about gun control.

I'm not exactly sure if this would be the right place to have this topic, but it seemed like the best place from what I come see. if it is not, sorry for putting it in the wrong place.

I sent an email to my two senator's (I'm from Missouri.) The senator's are Roy Blunt, and Claire McCaskill

I basically told both of them I am against any kind of ban on high count mags, or AR's, and as a congressman I'm sure you vowed to uphold the constitution. And that the 2nd amendment is not there to hunt, or for sport, but to ensure a militia that is armed to make sure no tyranny in government. I went on to say that stricter backround checks would be a better answer rather than outlawing it, when a very high portion of gun owners do not commit gun crimes. (This obviously isn't exactly what I said, it's just a brief summary, I am unable to go back and look at what I wrote exactly, since I sent it from their websites.)


This is what Sen. Claire McCaskill replied back with:

February 9, 2013
Dear Mr. Scheer,

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms. I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right. I welcomed and supported the recent Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that made clear that the constitutional right to gun ownership is an individual one.

At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them. We should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities, like preventing the mentally ill and criminals from possessing guns.

Recent tragedies, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that our nation's current gun laws should be reconsidered. Efforts to close the gun show loophole, provide for universal background checks on all guns sales, and to ensure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns are being considered. While I want to closely study any proposal before I vote on it, I welcome these initiatives, because they represent sensible steps to keep our communities safe while respecting gun ownership rights. Importantly, legal experts believe each of these steps is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Knowing that those responsible for some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent history have suffered from mental illness, it is equally clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens. A more robust mental health care system may help identify and treat individuals who need help before they resort to violence. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "Obamacare," will substantially expand important mental health coverage when it is fully implemented in 2014. I am hopeful that efforts to repeal these vital expansions in mental health care will come to an end, while new efforts will be undertaken to expand access to care.

Importantly, I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.

You may be interested to know that, in the past, my commitment to respecting the Second Amendment has led me to vote to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms and to prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen.

While the debate over appropriate gun control measures is divisive, I believe there is middle ground here. This nation can come together to support sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens -- especially innocent children -- while we continue to respect our constitution and its Second Amendment rights. Please know that, as your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers gun-related legislation in the months ahead.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,



Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at mccaskill.senate.gov...


This is what Sen. Roy Blunt replied back with:

Dear Tyler,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the rights of gun owners.
As you may know, I am a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights. The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families.

In light of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been calls for immediate action to address gun control. I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools. Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

There are no easy answers here. I continue to believe that a weapons ban does not fix the issue. Whatever we do, it must be consistent with the Constitution.

I appreciate your thoughts and will continue to support legislation that safeguards our Second Amendment rights, encourages safe and responsible gun ownership, and keeps our homes and families safe.

Agai n, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook ( www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt ) and Twitter ( www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt ) about the important issues f acing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website ( blunt.senate.gov ) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e -newsletter .

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator


I've been getting aggravated lately because gun owners are looking like their some sort of criminal if they own a "military style assault weapon." MSM has been busy trying to turn people against them, when AR's aren't even the most used firearm's in crimes. And they like to say the 2nd amendment is in place to hunt or for sport when this is not true. It's there to have security against an oppressive government. Obama had a photo of him released shooting a shotgun to even try and convey the hunting element even more. Which seems like their starting to try to hard.

So I figured I'd mail my senator's. It may not do very much, but at least it's something, doing nothing wouldn't help. Hopefully some of you mail your senators as well to make it clear we don't want heavy restrictions or bans.

I've been getting aggravated lately because gun owners are looking like their some sort of criminal if they own a "military style assault weapon."

Ummm, Id be more worried about being labelled a terrorist than a criminal. But then again Im use to being labelled a criminal.

If you wernt on a list already Im sure they have you on one now after emailing your reps.

Emailed both of my Senator's about gun control.

they'll be gettin back to you!

however i applaud for your courage.

reply to post by cartenz


Actually, yeah a "terrorist" would be the better word to use. The word terrorist has been getting beat into our heads for 13 years now. Wouldn't be surprised if the yuppies in MSM will start calling gun owners terrorists.

Do you believe the second amendment gives you access to any and all weapons?

If not how do you justify regulation in some cases but not others. How do you decide where you draw the line?

Originally posted by Hopechest
Do you believe the second amendment gives you access to any and all weapons?

If not how do you justify regulation in some cases but not others. How do you decide where you draw the line?

Well obviously people shouldn't be walking around with C4, or grenade launchers. But an AR isn't much different than a pistol. Only difference really is they hold more bullets, and are used primarily for longer range shooting. If the government outlawed AR's and only pistols were legal, what would stop them from taking pistols away also? If the government really started getting oppressive, it would be much harder to fight against a military with nukes, and fully auto heavy MG's/Assault rifles. You can't really have a resistance with only pistols if it came down to it.

reply to post by Lingweenie


I understand but what are you basing this claim on?

The Constitution, the second amendment, or personal opinion?

If its personal opinion you certainly have a right to that but so do the other people who believe they are not needed. A pistol to AR-15 to grenade launcher is a matter of degree only.

Since the second amendment leaves regulation of weaponry up to the Congress I don't think we can claim to know what the Founders intention was. If they knew they would have been more specific.

reply to post by Lingweenie


Good work! Don't be discouraged. The way to start is from the bottom up, meaning you local area, state, etc.

Also, as mentioned and to counter view above comments; Members on conspiracy sites are probably on a list, official or planned to be anyway, just for conversation pro or against establish views. Have a political blog and or comment or own a Facebook Political page with opposing current admin political views? Surely you're on a list. Non current admin view bumper bumper sticker? Mhmm or at least it will have you pulled. Not even to mention Utah's supercomputer keepings all of your records. CISPA, here it comes!

You haven't done anything wrong(not a peep about the labeled "pro terroristic" ideologies)? So what? You're not immune. You're on a list at least somewhere, don't kid yourself.

Shall we remain to cower in fear? To just let everything be passed even if we know it's not right...at least to us. NO! To say being meek in fear of being on a list won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by Lingweenie
reply to post by cartenz

 

Actually, yeah a "terrorist" would be the better word to use. The word terrorist has been getting beat into our heads for 13 years now. Wouldn't be surprised if the yuppies in MSM will start calling gun owners terrorists.

I hear at least the DHS Declares that, as it's making news.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

I understand but what are you basing this claim on?

The Constitution, the second amendment, or personal opinion?

If its personal opinion you certainly have a right to that but so do the other people who believe they are not needed. A pistol to AR-15 to grenade launcher is a matter of degree only.

Since the second amendment leaves regulation of weaponry up to the Congress I don't think we can claim to know what the Founders intention was. If they knew they would have been more specific.

It's clear our founders intended us to have similar weapons compared to the military, and also intended us to have our own citizen militia not linked to the military. If we did indeed have a very organized, responsible militia, I would see no reason as to why they couldn't have more sophisticated weaponry. We do have militias today, however they are small bands of citizens spread out across the country. There isn't really a all around militia hierarchy.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is simple, and you can read quotes from numerous early american's talking about the 2nd amendment either directly or indirectly. This purpose is: To have an independent militia in place to ensure safety from foreign and domestic enemies. Since the militia is only U.S. based, their mostly there to protect freedom's from anyone who make come to take them away. Early american's fought oppressive laws England had in place, and they devised the constitution and bill of rights in order to make sure people were not oppressed by their government ever again. The government was intended to serve the people, not have the people serve the Gov't. We also fought a civil war in the name of oppressive laws. We finally realized everyone was meant to be equal, not only by government law, but as a natural law from god. Although it was fought mostly because of government law since the south had allowed it, and would not give it up.

I don't see how you can keep a militia or populous armed to protect them selves from tyranny, or foreign invaders with only pistols. This would be obviously be favoring the government over the common man. And a government can easily take advantage of it, if they intended to grow even more powerful.

reply to post by Lingweenie


So what your saying is that we should have similar weaponry such as land mines, tanks, fighter jets, grenade launchers, biological weapons and so on?

AR-15's hardly put us on equal footing with the military. And I've studied all of the writings of the Founders and I cannot recall them mentioning we should be on equal ground with the military. I believe their thinking was that an armed populace would be equal simply due to their massive numbers.

The government is not as apt to pass detrimental legislation if they know there are 100 million guns, even pistols, being aimed at them.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Do you believe the second amendment gives you access to any and all weapons?

If not how do you justify regulation in some cases but not others. How do you decide where you draw the line?

Single shot rifles should be allowed. As well as handguns and shotguns.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh I believe far more than that should be legal, I'm just arguing the point that it was left unclear what is and is not acceptable. The framers intentionally left it to be debated by Congress according to what they feel their era needs. This is why there were not specific.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Oh I believe far more than that should be legal, I'm just arguing the point that it was left unclear what is and is not acceptable. The framers intentionally left it to be debated by Congress according to what they feel their era needs. This is why there were not specific.

They were specific, they said the right shall not be infringed. And single shot rifles would be the AR they are trying to ban.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

So what your saying is that we should have similar weaponry such as land mines, tanks, fighter jets, grenade launchers, biological weapons and so on?

AR-15's hardly put us on equal footing with the military. And I've studied all of the writings of the Founders and I cannot recall them mentioning we should be on equal ground with the military. I believe their thinking was that an armed populace would be equal simply due to their massive numbers.

The government is not as apt to pass detrimental legislation if they know there are 100 million guns, even pistols, being aimed at them.

Yes, I believe certain vehicles or weapons should be available to a very organized militia if we had one. But not ALL of them. Things such as nukes and other very powerful weapons/vehicles should be left in the hands of the military. A militia wouldn't only be there to keep the government in check, but to also have armed citizens to protect from any foreign invasion that may occur. If your in stuck in a war zone, you can't sit around and wait for the army. not being trained or armed properly can get you and your family killed.

The number of guns aimed at them wouldn't matter. A average citizen can't keep up with a highly trained soldier. And people with pistols can't fight against fighter jets, tanks, and 50 cal. mounted jeeps. It would be suicide. Not to mention the army has drones, and missiles they can just bomb high rebel activity areas.

reply to post by Lingweenie

The number of guns aimed at them wouldn't matter. A average citizen can't keep up with a highly trained soldier.

Newsflash.. millions of us are former "highly trained soldiers", secondly, if It were not for the surge we would have been beat in Iraq by average citizens with weapons. Lastly, a certain percentage of the military would side with the populace against a tyrannical government. Remember, a soldier's oath is to defend the country from all enemies, foreign..

AND domestic.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

The number of guns aimed at them wouldn't matter. A average citizen can't keep up with a highly trained soldier.

Newsflash.. millions of us are former "highly trained soldiers", secondly, if It were not for the surge we would have been beat in Iraq by average citizens with weapons. Lastly, a certain percentage of the military would side with the populace against a tyrannical government. Remember, a soldier's oath is to defend the country from all enemies, foreign..

AND domestic.

That doesn't justify why an AR-15 should be banned. Most murder with firearms are used with pistols, not AR's. Plus gun free, or gun restricted areas have more crime than heavy gun owner areas. The media jumped on two shootings that had a AR involved and say their evil based on only two events. Yet the MSM doesn't bother reporting how an AR has saved people from a criminal. It's all biased, they want to carry on taking away liberties for "security." Our 4-8 amendments are basically rubbish right now. And this Dorner case that happened lately apparently makes it okay for law enforcement to shoot guns off recklessly in public areas, and burn someone alive saying "burn the motherfu**** down." And while all of this has been going on, the DHS is out on a bullet and gun buying spree, while to government is saying they should restrict them, or possibly ban them. I really don't see why a semi-auto AR show be outlawed. It would just be a growing violation of our rights from our government.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Oh I believe far more than that should be legal, I'm just arguing the point that it was left unclear what is and is not acceptable. The framers intentionally left it to be debated by Congress according to what they feel their era needs. This is why there were not specific.

They were specific, they said the right shall not be infringed. And single shot rifles would be the AR they are trying to ban.

edit on 17-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

What right shall not be infringed?

The right to bear arms? Which ones? All of them or just some?

They don't really say.

They were not specific at all.

reply to post by Lingweenie


I didn't say the AR should be banned.

reply to post by Hopechest


The framers of the Constitution didn't place any restrictions on what types of firearms we can own.

There was only one "specific" they gave, that government cannot infringe on that liberty.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

I didn't say the AR should be banned.

In your earlier post you said single shot rifles, pistols and shotguns should be allowed. Without including that, I would have to assume it's something you believe should not be allowed.