Emailed both of my Senator's about gun control.

Originally posted by Hopechest

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.

Well a firearm is a handheld weapon that fires a lead/metal projectile. You asked why not have landmines or grenade launchers if we have to right to bare arms. These weapons are not exactly a firearm, their explosives. Regular guns that have conventional ammunition don't explode and cause a frag effect. So this would put them in a different category. Which is why they are outlawed. Any weapon that fires a bullet, or buck shot would be considered a firearm in my opinion. Such as a pistol, shotgun, rifle, submachine gun, AR, and possibly a heavy MG.

Originally posted by Lingweenie

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.

AR's are single shot. There is no selective fire switch on an AR-15. I didnt say bolt action.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Lingweenie

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.

AR's are single shot. There is no selective fire switch on an AR-15. I didnt say bolt action.

Oh alright, typically when I hear single shot I tend to think of a bolt action or pump action, like most shotguns.

reply to post by Lingweenie


No, I was saying we can do without automatic or burst fire rifles. Single fire is more accurate anyways.

I would be remiss if I didn't post this in this thread...in case one is planning on writing, here are a few basics

How to Write Letters to Congress: a Tutorial (Optional Video Tutorial Included)

Originally posted by Lingweenie

Originally posted by Hopechest

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.

Well a firearm is a handheld weapon that fires a lead/metal projectile. You asked why not have landmines or grenade launchers if we have to right to bare arms. These weapons are not exactly a firearm, their explosives. Regular guns that have conventional ammunition don't explode and cause a frag effect. So this would put them in a different category. Which is why they are outlawed. Any weapon that fires a bullet, or buck shot would be considered a firearm in my opinion. Such as a pistol, shotgun, rifle, submachine gun, AR, and possibly a heavy MG.

I understand your reasoning but you are definitely hitting a grey area there. Who's to say that if explosive weapons were common in the time the Constitution was written that they wouldn't have included them also. Your basing guesswork on assumption here.

There is absolutely no documentation by the Framers of what they defined as a firearm.

reply to post by Hopechest


All they really had back then was single shot rifles and pistols, and cannons. So finding out what they meant by a firearm is rather easy. And I'm sure they were smart enough to know that firearms would evolve over time. Even in their lifetime they saw the improvements the settlers came up with making rifles more accurate by making the bullet spin as it is shot outward, causing higher accuracy. Which they used to help win their independence.

Since all they basically had was cannons, rifles, and pistols, it's common sense to say a firearm is a weapon that shoots out a projectile. primarily one that does not explode or cause a frag effect. And I'm sure you'll point out the cannon since it is more of an artillery weapon. But having a cannon wouldn't be convenient. Sure it can help on a battle field, but wouldn't benefit you over all. If your being robbed at the time, you won't have time to get your cannon and place in front of someone then fire it, or help you hunt. So why would they want people to own an inconvenient weapon? There were surely more rifles and pistols than cannons used, so their idea of a firearm looks pretty easy to figure out. Sure firearms were much different, but not much has changed. All that really changed was being able to shoot more than once without having to reload. Not all that drastic change of pace.

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?

Yes it does.

Regulation is not legal (read "shall not be infringed")

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.

The Second Amendment does not leave regulation of weaponry up to Congress. In fact it prohibits Congress from regulating it.

I wonder if gun control was put to a national vote, where it would end up? I think the libs and cons all like their guns.

Those letters from your senators were so typical. I've emailed my senators on various issues, alway get the standard appeasing letter back, but their stance always ends up opposite of mine anyway. Waste of time. You will notice that our congressmen word things based on their beliefs, when they should really only be the spokesmen for their state.

It's a slippery slope this gun control issue. When you allow one thing you set a precedent for more to follow.

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.

You didn't study enough:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 [August 17, 1789]])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Very good quotes

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 gives no regulatory powers to congress in this case. Any suggestion of regulation there, its is clear, is with the states and then only in regards to large groups of men gathered for matial duty and not the individual. Please, please I beg you.... read it cearfully.

And what? How long have you been on this site? many have gone to the effort of showing that the founders were very clear about what they thought. They were not specific because they didnt want to pigeonhole the states rights here with some stupid list of weapons. Often leaving things wide open is as much a legal tactic as being overly specific.......and most of these guys were lawyers.....not a bunch of drunken goths having a drunken orgy in the senate chambers after the fall of Rome, setting around scratching their heads like a bunch of apes.

Originally posted by lynxpilot


"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

My personal favorite.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
I wonder if gun control was put to a national vote, where it would end up? I think the libs and cons all like their guns.

Those letters from your senators were so typical. I've emailed my senators on various issues, alway get the standard appeasing letter back, but their stance always ends up opposite of mine anyway. Waste of time. You will notice that our congressmen word things based on their beliefs, when they should really only be the spokesmen for their state.

It's a slippery slope this gun control issue. When you allow one thing you set a precedent for more to follow.

Yea they get up there to represent and send back form letters of offical party and current PC flow clap trap. They set around and watch the wind direction on the majior news outlets for direction whiel waiting for the offical party memo on any given issue. Like some have said here....they should all have mental exams and pass a test on the consitution before even being allowed to run for dogcatcher!

Have you noticed and/or thought about the fact that certain senators get all the sound bites and face time on media....as if they represent us all on any given issue? Its like any new blood we send up to congress and the people at large must operate in the shadow of these "gods" of the senate and congress. Its like they are movie stars with some pulling up as bit players and character actors with the media directing the set as the grand inquisitors.

I wrote all of mine as well. I got the standard replies from most. The one Dem in my state sent a reply not unlike your pro gun control reply.

Bob Ballinger showed some real merit though, and had an interesting reply.

I said:

> The Honorable Bob Ballinger
> Arkansas House of Representatives
> State Capitol
> Little Rock, AR 72201
>
>
> Representative Ballinger:
>
> I have not met a single person who supports this. I keep seeing polls
> saying a majority supports this, but I really think it just more of
> new
> 2013 NDAA provision which made domestic deceptive propaganda legal.
>
> We have to have more state movements! Look at what Wyoming has done as
> a template!
>
> The Federal Government has lost all legitimacy as far as I am
> concerned, and I don't think I am of a minority point of view!
>
> The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt
> international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA
> authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants"
> without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a
> one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it.
> You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated
> potential targets of the state.
>
> That's not representation! Its contrary to everything American.
>
> America will define the times we will not be defined by them! We must
> not tire, we must not falter and we must not fail. When we take this
> country back, all these jokers should be put on trial! We must allow
> merit to become a prerequisite for public office and end the rein of
> these plastic men!
>
> If you surrender the 2nd you surrender them all!
> I really feel like I have no representation at all!
>
>Sincerely,
>XXXXXXX

Bob Ballinger said

Mr. XXX,

It sounds like you are awake, but you probably read more than you watch reality TV. I'm not so sure we have enough who are awake to make any difference, and it may be too late, but I pray that this new awakening will grow and we will see real reforms. I will do my part. If you want to visit about what we are working on to push back against an overreaching Fed and protect your right to bear arms, give me a call.

Thanks,

Bob

Robert A. Ballinger
Attorney at Law
Arkansas State Representative
District 97
870.350.5175

Bob Ballinger for President!