Response from a Senator regarding the 2nd Amendment
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Response from a Senator regarding the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Flint, Michigan

    Red face Response from a Senator regarding the 2nd Amendment

    Ok, so I wrote one of my Liberal Senators a while back after seeing he voted for Fiensteins proposed AWB. It was clear cut and dry (my e mail to him) I informed him he would not receive a vote from me come next election, and would likely be thrown out on his tookis due to his treason against the constitution. I received a generic response as most Americans do, but was quite surprised...It was retitled as "Your Concerns"
    Have fun reading the misuse of "facts".

    From Senator Carl Levin:

    "Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

    I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms.
    I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.
    While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more should be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.
    Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.
    I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.
    To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.
    This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them young children.
    We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. To prevent more of these horrific incidents, on April 8, 2013, the Senate began consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S.649). I favor passage of this legislation, which would address the loopholes in the Brady background check system that have allowed too many violent individuals to circumvent the checks designed to keep them from committing horrific acts.
    The Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act also includes provisions designed to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system, to prevent the trafficking that allows criminals to easily obtain firearm and to give schools additional resources to protect their students from violence. On April 18, 2013, the Senate considered several amendments to the bill. Some of these amendments would have strengthened the bill’s gun safety provisions, while others would have weakened them. In the end, these amendments were not agreed to. I am hopeful the Senate will soon return to consideration of this important bill.
    We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. Common sense gun safety legislation has the overwhelming support of the American people and of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. Our responsibility to take steps that protect Americans from preventable gun violence remains, and I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures that fulfill this responsibility.

    Thank you again for contacting me.


    Carl Levin"

    At least this prick was man enough to respond, Senator Stebenow has not responded to my e mail, I dont expect one, then again this one took nearly a month to come to me....Wonder if he took the time to write it himself.

    Your thoughts?
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  3. Ask the ass hat if he even knows what a "barrel shroud" is. There are so many lies in his response as to make me believe he has no idea what he is talking about. I would not waste any time on this guy other than to try your best to get him fired as soon as possible.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Next time you contact your rep, send him this....

    If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

    This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
    PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

    Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of

    D.H. Garrison, Jr.

    Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

    Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

    I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

    About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

    If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

    Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

    Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

    Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

    I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

    Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

    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.

    This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

    For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

    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

    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

    I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

    We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

    A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

    Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

    It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

    If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

    Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

    I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

    Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

    I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

    If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

    This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

    I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

    I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

    You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

    I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

    For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

    Are you willing to die to take my guns?


    Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

    Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian.

    Henry Ford

    Sent from behind enemy lines.

  5. #4
    Unfortunately, I am also represented by Levin and Stabenow. All I have to say is I am glad Levin is retiring and have let Stabenow know she is not getting my vote. She did respond to one of my previous emails and it was right along party lines

  6. #5
    I have received similar form letters from good old Chuck Schumer on the numerous occasions I sent letters to his office. Always proclaiming that he is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and "hunter's rights". The only thing to be done with the anti-gun politicians is to try and vote them out.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Flint, Michigan
    I sent a reply to him, again, cant find it in my out box, but it was nothing but statistics I found online basically crushing his Brady campaign statistics. Wonder if hed send another Generic response or just write me off as a voter lol.
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Topeka, KS
    What is it these elected elite bozos always seem to miss in all the tragic shootings we have endured in recent years? EVERY ONE OF THEM, AT SOME POINT, HAD MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. (Unless you want to question if Nadal or the Marathon bombers were treated for mental health issues, that is. I argue their embracing radical islamic solutions itself is evidence they were mentally unstable.) I find it interesting Sen. Levin did not deem that fact important enough to include as one of his "solutions." The point is that most of these gun grabbers do not want to admit the greatest common thread with each of these murderers is that they were mentally ill. I saw a complete listing a while back put out by Front Sight firearm training that listed the mental diagnosis and drugs for each of the mass murders in recent history, including those outside the US. It was startling to see how many were on, had been on or should have been on Prozac or similar medications.
    ---- Now the grabbers may say they will address the mental issues after they take our guns. It is obvious they don't want to really solve the problem, only want to use the peoblem to further their agenda. Otherwise, the gun bans would not have been introduced at all. Remedies to address mental health would be their positions. The real hero coming out of the Sandy Hook tragedy was the father of one of those killed who testified against gun control and said it is not the fault of the firearms or the type of firearms, it is the fault of an individual with mental health issues. That took real courage, especially with many of the other parents in the school embracing the liberal anti-gun positions.
    ----The big caveat that comes with simply taking guns away from anyone with a mental "disorder" is the purpose is still gun grabbing, not making our streets safer, at least the way the grabbers interpret it. How many of our military would "qualify" to have PTSD if all the facts were known. There have already been instances where a veteran has been treated for issues related with his service such as PTSD and then denied the right to a firearm as a result and they pose no danger to themselves or others. A recent study determined likely 50% or more of Americans will experience mental health issues in their lifetime. The end result of any commonly advanced legislation on mental health reasons for gun bans would take away firearms from the vast majority of military, many police or fire, anyone who felt grief or anger upon a serious illness or accident or event involving themselves or the death of a loved one. Of course, to those who want to disarm all citizens, that would be fine.
    ----We need to address mental health as a reason to prevent gun ownership but within limits. I suggest the following considerations. (1) Provisions must be made to allow the individual losing the right for that reason to challenge the finding in court, without having to pay for court costs in the challenge. The individual's right to unfair seizure of firearms (4th Amendment) should apply here. (2) If it is acuratelly determined the person is potentially a danger to himself or others, and loses the right to have a firearm, that should not be a life sentence. The action must not be arbitrary but determined by the court. I saw one proposed state provision that allowed for a three-year waiting period before allowing to have the right restored, supposedly allowing for time for treatment and resolution. I think that is too much, with two years being more reasonable. (3) I believe in all situations, for any reasons other than committing felonies with firearms, the individual that has to forfeit firearms has a right to sell them or transfer to a relative instead of being taken by police. The law should not have the right to profit off or destroy (as the gun grabbers wish) firearms that are taken. There can be sufficient limitations to prevent the person losing the right to own from reacquiring them until they have that right restored. This way, a person who has serious money tied up in a gun collection does not lose all those assets with no remuneration when they have committed no criminal act! (4) Anything I have seen where a medical health professional is to alert the law of an individual's potential for harming himself or others puts the onus on the the health professional. The likelihood is that person would be encouraged to take action if any chance of mentally ill and over-react rather than using an unbiased judgement. No penalties if mistakenly fingering someone who is not a danger but penalized if they miss diagnosing someone will bias the health or mental health worker into potentially labelling someone that is totally sane and costing them their rights. The other part of an unfair, gun grab first approach would be that many people who face challenges in dealing with life would refuse to seek healthcare to avoid losing their rights.
    ----There could be more protections which I did not list. To me, it is mandatory that any legislation to restrict Second Amendment rights due to mental health issues must consider first the rights of the target individual and is only to apply when there is a definite danger to themself or others. As mentioned, I believe that every one of the mass murders on Prozac left plenty of evidence to their health care professional they were capable of and had considered committing violence. Those needing help for mental health issues should not feel trying to get help will mean their rights are going to be taken away. Any legislation that will result in more than 2-3% of Americans temporarily losing this right, is in all likelihood being used by gun grabbers, and not being applied correctly and is unfair. The grabbers would spend their time better addressing the inner-city (Chicago, NYC, etc.) gun violence, usually by those possessing firearms illegally and are repeat offenders, and get those criminals and their guns off the streets and leave mine alone. Let's solve the problem by addressing the real issue instead of using a tragedy, that would not have been prevented by Feinstein's solutions, to take away guaranteed rights. Keep the guaranteed rights of 99.97% of gun owners intact.
    Dave "The said Constitution shall never be prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    West Michigan
    Senators Levin and Stabenow are genuine Obama sycophants and big government globalists... end o' discussion!
    “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley

Posting Permissions

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