Writing Letters - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Writing Letters

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Member #
    1335
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    15,245
    Liked
    6427 times
    It is our duty to do these tings if we want to keep the 2nd alive. It does not hurt to remind our state and federal reps what we expect from them. It does not hurt at this time t support the NRA at this time either.
    Czechbikr likes this.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Member #
    49529
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,382
    Liked
    3858 times
    [QUOTE=kschilk;5461297]I'm with NotSo here. If the reps gave a crap, none of these fantasy laws would even get to a second reading. Also, it seems these kinds of laws only get passed through secretive, late night "emergency" sessions designed to circumvent any and all public opposition. Honest people and legitimate legislators just don't do that. I fear our best and only option is to get them out of office asap and that requires appealing to their constituents, the voters. Unfortunately, social media is censoring
    CaptainMorgan likes this.
    I am a Veteran, I am a Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather.
    I was labeled a Deplorable, now I'm a Nationalist rather than a Globalist! As a USA Veteran I will proudly wear that to protect our Nation!
    When they can figure out how to legislate Morality and Conscience I will consider talking more gun laws.


    Join the fun!

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Member #
    5492
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,711
    Liked
    852 times
    Some will agree with this, some will scratch their heads, but I am convinced that the natural is controlled by the supernatural, and that we were warned of the 'one world order' centuries ago. I think it is inevitable ...... all we can do is maybe delay it.

    America is the last man standing as far as personal freedoms (and those are being continually pecked at). America has to be subdued in order for this 'world order' to come about. A major requirement of that submission is disarmament ...... to allow the 'government' to control the people, rather than vise versa. And 'boiling the frog slowly' is the best way for our chief, supernatural evil doer (and his political minions) to accomplish this, as an outright ban would create too much uproar.

    It will come 'step by step', 'inch by inch', as we relax in that increasingly hot water and our youth easily and eagerly give up freedoms, that they know nothing about, in exchange for being 'taken care of'. ......... Basically willing to live in prison. But they won't see it that way. ...... 'Freedom isn't free' ...... but they think it is.

    "..Draw near to God and He will draw near to you..". James 4:8. ...... I believe the reverse also holds true. As our nation withdraws from him, he is withdrawing from us ...... The results are obvious to me. ....... And guess who is filling the vacuum.

    I fear these shootings continue as they are the best way for the devil to sway the public, and his minions, to take action and 'start' the slow process of disarming the people, and thus help usher in his 'new world order' led by his puppet. I suspect that God is backing off of our nation as more and more people foolishly THINK that 'man alone can rule man'.

    To think they will stop with 'black guns' is delusional. Always remember that 'inch by inch' is the plan.

    We have 'free will' ...... he is letting us use it to our own demise.

    Other than the quote, just my opinion.
    I can legally defend myself against bad guys, but there is no legal defense against bad guys with badges.
    I do not kill animals, nor do I pay other people to kill them for me.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TaurusArmed.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14
    Senior Member
    Member #
    49529
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,382
    Liked
    3858 times
    Quote Originally Posted by kschilk View Post
    I'm with NotSo here. If the reps gave a crap, none of these fantasy laws would even get to a second reading. Also, it seems these kinds of laws only get passed through secretive, late night "emergency" sessions designed to circumvent any and all public opposition. Honest people and legitimate legislators just don't do that. I fear our best and only option is to get them out of office asap .
    Thing is that they believe they Are Listening to the ones that voted them in because those people have the loudest screaming voice or that Rep already agrees with the Control POV and because of that view they believe that is why they were elected. Agreed that if they do not want to listen or address the other side of the argument then yes more needs to be done to replace them. But to do that one needs votes in opposition. How do you get those votes in a place like Chicago? LA? NYC?. Just give up because it's useless?

    Late night Deals? Sure. that is why Chuck Schumer and his group wanted to call a Special Session. To Strike while the Irons hot and emotions run high! Mantra, "We Got to Do Something, even if its Wrong or Misdirected"! "It's For the Children", "If we can prevent just One _ _ _".
    kschilk and CaptainMorgan like this.
    I am a Veteran, I am a Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather.
    I was labeled a Deplorable, now I'm a Nationalist rather than a Globalist! As a USA Veteran I will proudly wear that to protect our Nation!
    When they can figure out how to legislate Morality and Conscience I will consider talking more gun laws.


    Join the fun!

  6. #15
    Senior Member
    Member #
    45087
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lee County Florida (SWFL)
    Posts
    2,778
    Liked
    4169 times
    GOA has a form letter on their site to be sent to our elected representatives. Below is the text of the letter:

    You were elected to uphold the United States Constitution and represent the American people in the Senate.

    If you vote for this Red Flag Confiscation bill, you will be attacking our constitutional rights to bear arms, attacking our constitutional right to due process, and turning your back on the American voters who trusted you to represent us in the Senate.

    This bill would create a federal “bribe pot” to encourage states to pass Red Flag Gun Confiscation bills. This means SWAT teams would be empowered to show up at innocent Americans’ doorsteps, demanding they fork over their guns, all because they’ve been named a suspected danger to our society.

    This is exactly what happened to an African-American gentleman living in Maryland. After a family argument, an angry relative got revenge against Gary Willis by using the state Red Flag Gun Confiscation law to send police to his door. The authorities showed up at 5:17 a.m. and shot him to death.

    These Red Flag gun grabs will undoubtedly be used as ploys to get revenge against innocent Americans and will move our country down a dark and dangerous road.

    Anyone who tells you that the Graham legislation would not compromise the due process of American citizens is deceiving you.

    If that were the case, it could not fund ANY state program currently on the books or any program being considered by any state legislature. Because not one state with red flag gun grabs currently includes due process prior to seizing a gun owners' firearms!

    Like all gun control, Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws will only end up hurting honest, innocent Americans who play by the rules and want to keep themselves and their families safe.

    If you go down this road of supporting gun control, you could face HUGE repercussions at the polls. Rush Limbaugh has already begun bashing Republicans after it was reported on Monday that the GOP was getting behind red flag laws. Limbaugh called these laws “a pipeline to gun control.”

    Gun Owners of America has also vowed to support a primary challenger to Lindsey Graham because he introduced this bill. Republicans who vote for this radical measure could be next.

    Come next election, I, and many of my fellow American citizens will remember whether you voted to uphold the United States Constitution or chose to cower before the anti-gun mob
    .
    When people lose their way and begin to vote for their own yokes and chains and suddenly we’re all wearing them, when Government turns tyrannical and the light of liberty is being extinguished.... our 2nd amendment is our ONLY hope.


  7. #16
    Senior Member
    Member #
    2966
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    24,959
    Liked
    48156 times
    Here's an article from Judge Napolitano.
    A pretty good article. Perhaps it'll give you some ideas for your letters.

    A Few Words About Guns and Personal Liberty
    By Andrew P. Napolitano
    August 8, 2019

    Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t.

    The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.

    It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.
    It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

    With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.

    Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has.

    The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.
    Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?
    In theory, all of this was known by President Donald Trump when he addressed the nation last Monday and attributed the weekend slaughters to mental illness, the freedom to express hateful ideas on the internet and violent video games. He should have consulted his lawyers before he spoke.

    Federal law prohibits records of mental deficiencies, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government’s databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the internet or games played there.

    Then he condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as “good people,” even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young black woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the southwest United States was being “invaded” and “infested” by Hispanics.

    That white supremacy ideology — “let’s repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won’t do so” — resonates in the El Paso killer’s manifesto, which he published about 20 minutes before he began killing. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.
    We know that some among us love to hate. That is their right, but they have no right to act violently beyond their perverse thoughts. And all people have the right to repel such violence by using guns to do so.
    The president also offered his support for “red flag” laws. These horrific statutes permit police or courts to seize guns from those deemed dangerous. Red flag laws are unconstitutional.

    The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

    In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do. When the Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior, President Ronald Reagan condemned it. Now, the president wants it here.

    The United States is not New Zealand, where a national legislature, animated by fear and provoked by tragedy, can impair fundamental liberties by majority vote. In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.

    The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.
    That’s why we have a Constitution.
    We the People...

  8. #17
    Senior Member
    Member #
    25857
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    S. Fort Worth TX
    Posts
    13,785
    Liked
    21893 times
    Quote Originally Posted by rollin thunder View Post
    Here's an article from Judge Napolitano.
    A pretty good article. Perhaps it'll give you some ideas for your letters.

    A Few Words About Guns and Personal Liberty
    By Andrew P. Napolitano
    August 8, 2019

    Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t.

    The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.

    It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.
    It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

    With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety.

    Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has.

    The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.
    Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?
    In theory, all of this was known by President Donald Trump when he addressed the nation last Monday and attributed the weekend slaughters to mental illness, the freedom to express hateful ideas on the internet and violent video games. He should have consulted his lawyers before he spoke.

    Federal law prohibits records of mental deficiencies, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government’s databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the internet or games played there.

    Then he condemned hate. Do you believe his condemnations? He has, after all, praised the white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as “good people,” even though one of them pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a young black woman, and even though, as a candidate and later as president, he argued that the southwest United States was being “invaded” and “infested” by Hispanics.

    That white supremacy ideology — “let’s repel the Hispanic invaders because the feds won’t do so” — resonates in the El Paso killer’s manifesto, which he published about 20 minutes before he began killing. That ideology is far more widespread than most Americans realize. The FBI recently demonstrated as much. This form of hatred of people because of their immutable characteristics breeds violence.
    We know that some among us love to hate. That is their right, but they have no right to act violently beyond their perverse thoughts. And all people have the right to repel such violence by using guns to do so.
    The president also offered his support for “red flag” laws. These horrific statutes permit police or courts to seize guns from those deemed dangerous. Red flag laws are unconstitutional.

    The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

    In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do. When the Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior, President Ronald Reagan condemned it. Now, the president wants it here.

    The United States is not New Zealand, where a national legislature, animated by fear and provoked by tragedy, can impair fundamental liberties by majority vote. In America, neither Congress nor the states can outlaw whatever handguns or rifles they want to outlaw or infringe upon the right to own them.

    The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.
    That’s why we have a Constitution.
    Judge Napolitano is wrong in many points he made in his commentary.
    The first was his assumption that President Trump praised the white supremacists in Charlottesville. he said there were good people on both sides. Both sides were those who wanted to maintain the statue and those who wanted it torn down. Are there some good people on both sides? Absolutely, there's also many bad people on both sides. Position on a singular point does not exclusively determine whether one is good or not. If it did, depending on the position, everyone is a bad person.
    Secondly, he claims the US Constitution is the ultimate law of the land that cannot be legislated against. Well, I can show law after law (to the amount of 40,000 nationwide) that contradict what he claims. So if something is unconstitutional, who will challenge it? The average person who is impacted? Only the rich and powerful? What if the SCOTUS runs away from it as they do towards the 2nd amendment? SCOTUS constitutional challenges aren't free and this disenfranchises about 90% of the population. So what IF it's successfully challenged and ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS? How does this prohibit the average citizen from still being run through the mill after the decision? If you are open carrying a rifle where it's been judged completely legal and lawful, how are you protected when police decide they don't want you armed because... reasons? you still get harassed, disarmed and often taken into custody. The Ultimate law of the land does NOTHING to protect you from overzealous and fearful people. Red Flag laws just exasperate the problem.
    The problem isn't infringements on the law abiding, it's the absolute lack of repercussions for false accusations and Legislators who violate their oaths of office. How many times have we heard of proposed ordinances or laws that clearly violate the US Constitution but they get passed and enforced anyways? How many times have we heard of false rape charges or racist attacks that are completely fabricated? To have true and fair justice, you need repercussions with the weight of law equally applied to both sides.
    kmw1954 likes this.
    PT1911 - 45ACP, Pietta 1873 SAA - 45LC, PT709SS slim, Heritage RR 6.5" 22LR/Mag dual cylinders
    1939 Tula 91/30 Nugget, Evil Copper and Black Rifle, Savage B-Mag in 17WSM
    Mossberg 535 12ga
    GPS Coordinates to lake where they all reside. Always wear your life vests kids. Boating accidents DO happen.

  9. #18
    Senior Member
    Member #
    49529
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,382
    Liked
    3858 times
    Lots here to digest and think about for sure, many good points and some a bit out there.

    bobbojama I thought that form letter was a bit confrontational, demanding and bordering on intimidation. Not sure that is the stance I would take when trying to win friends to an argument. Though I can see where it may become necessary to make a direct point.

    rollin thunder, I am not a big fan or supporter of Judge Napolitano. Matter of fact all was going well until he started his political opinion in the eighth paragraph. Then he lost me and my support. Though in his letter he brought up a point I have been trying to make for over a year and that is this;

    Federal law prohibits records of mental deficiencies, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government’s databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the internet or games played there.


    Most all the recent shooters obtained their guns Legally and passed a Background Check. Most every one had something in their past behavior that should have Red Flagged them Before they were able to obtain those guns. But the law restricted them from being reported. Yes their Civil Rights were protected but many others Civil Life was taken from them because of it. So how do we balance this?
    I am a Veteran, I am a Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather.
    I was labeled a Deplorable, now I'm a Nationalist rather than a Globalist! As a USA Veteran I will proudly wear that to protect our Nation!
    When they can figure out how to legislate Morality and Conscience I will consider talking more gun laws.


    Join the fun!

  10. #19
    Senior Member
    Member #
    54857
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,166
    Liked
    7767 times
    Quote Originally Posted by kmw1954 View Post
    Lots here to digest and think about for sure, many good points and some a bit out there.

    bobbojama I thought that form letter was a bit confrontational, demanding and bordering on intimidation. Not sure that is the stance I would take when trying to win friends to an argument. Though I can see where it may become necessary to make a direct point.

    rollin thunder, I am not a big fan or supporter of Judge Napolitano. Matter of fact all was going well until he started his political opinion in the eighth paragraph. Then he lost me and my support. Though in his letter he brought up a point I have been trying to make for over a year and that is this;

    Federal law prohibits records of mental deficiencies, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government’s databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the internet or games played there.


    Most all the recent shooters obtained their guns Legally and passed a Background Check. Most every one had something in their past behavior that should have Red Flagged them Before they were able to obtain those guns. But the law restricted them from being reported. Yes their Civil Rights were protected but many others Civil Life was taken from them because of it. So how do we balance this?
    The answer to the question is in the bolded part, the part about mental deficiencies NOT being a part of the public record.

    I have used that against Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly many a time when they talk about their agenda, and remind them that the person that shot her, Jared Lee Loughner, had LEGALLY obtained his weapons AFTER filling out a 4473. Mr. Loughner, as many know, HAD TO BE DRUGGED in order to be COMPETENT ENOUGH to stand trial. Now if he had his mental deficiencies diagnosed and recorded as public record, Mr. Loughner WOULD NOT have passed the background check, WOULD NOT have had firearms, and Ms. Giffords WOULD NOT have been shot, nor would any of the other victims have been wounded or killed that fateful day in Tucson.

    And with that said, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Giffords begin a diatribe about the guns, and I then remind them about not locking up cars for drunk driving but locking up the driver, and how we don't fill in swimming pools for backyard drowning deaths but educate people to "watch your kids around water". Again, I tell them a gun is an inanimate object, just like a baseball bat or knife or car, that needs someone to operate it for it to become deadly.
    Desperado's Big Bang Theory:
    The theory that a "big bang" from a handgun, along with a perpetrator receiving a gunshot wound, is the best way to end violent personal or property crimes.

  11. #20
    Senior Member
    Member #
    49529
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,382
    Liked
    3858 times
    Desperado, my sentiments exactly. It was actually one of the points I made in my letters. So can we make changes and updates to the HIPAA laws? If not then how are the HIPAA Laws worked around when it comes to the Red Flag laws? Are we not still provided the same protections? Are we all going to need to keep a Dr. on retainer to go to court for us to defend our sanity and mental state?
    CaptainMorgan and kerk like this.
    I am a Veteran, I am a Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather.
    I was labeled a Deplorable, now I'm a Nationalist rather than a Globalist! As a USA Veteran I will proudly wear that to protect our Nation!
    When they can figure out how to legislate Morality and Conscience I will consider talking more gun laws.


    Join the fun!

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •