I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians.

Letters and emails sent by constituents to various politicians are generally tallied by staff or interns and reported as totals. For example,
"This week we received 852 messages in favor of more gun control and 574 in favor of fewer restrictions, 1838 messages supporting pro-choice and 710 supporting greater restrictions on abortion." Rare indeed are the representatives who read their own mail.
 

Letters and emails sent by constituents to various politicians are generally tallied by staff or interns and reported as totals. For example,
"This week we received 852 messages in favor of more gun control and 574 in favor of fewer restrictions, 1838 messages supporting pro-choice and 710 supporting greater restrictions on abortion." Rare indeed are the representatives who read their own mail.
Personally, I just hope those tallies are accurate! Please tell me, where did you find this information?
 
I know that you like to have the last word, so this is mine (feel compelled to reply) - As I said, this would apply before any new gun purchase. If you couldn't prove you had such insurance, you wouldn't be sold a weapon. End of discussion.

Discussion continued.........

Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?

OK, now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever heard of phony ID ? Young folks use them frequently.

As it is today, proof of insurance must be provided to obtain a drivers license in most [maybe all] states. What's the proof ? When the license is applied for , or extension requested , one must sign a paper that states they do in fact have said insurance . No substantiating paperwork required.

You are taken at your word ...... same would happen with guns.
 

Discussion continued.........

Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?

OK, now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever heard of phony ID ? Young folks use them frequently.

As it is today, proof of insurance must be provided to obtain a drivers license in most [maybe all] states. What's the proof ? When the license is applied for , or extension requested , one must sign a paper that states they do in fact have said insurance . No substantiating paperwork required.

You are taken at your word ...... same would happen with guns.
In Pennsylvania, we don’t need proof of insurance to get a driver’s license. We only need proof of insurance when we register a vehicle.
 
Discussion continued.........

Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?

OK, now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever heard of phony ID ? Young folks use them frequently.

As it is today, proof of insurance must be provided to obtain a drivers license in most [maybe all] states. What's the proof ? When the license is applied for , or extension requested , one must sign a paper that states they do in fact have said insurance . No substantiating paperwork required.

You are taken at your word ...... same would happen with guns.
states vary greatly no required proof of insurance for license since it is the CAR not driver insured ... only when you buy and license a car ... many get cheap with instant proof and after buying it some even CANCEL the policy...
only real proof is if pulled over or accident....
what do they do if you get a FEW tickets no insurance etc ..... that is right they take away the drivers license and then you have uninsured and unlicensed drivers and neither of those items START an engine.

In my state a school shooting happened years ago... the kid took his dads gun.... the dad filled out the paperwork and all the "right" or appropriate boxes were checked ...
a government clerk passed it................ did not research or look deeper
the man in question had recently had a restraining order put on him....
that incident would NOT show on a background check for 6 months to a year as MANY states are that far behind in data entry or updating records.
So the end of story after a shooting that if i remember right 4-5 high school kids were killed and kid who shot killed himself ....... The parent served 3 years on a perjury charge for not filling out the background paperwork correctly.......
 
Personally, I just hope those tallies are accurate! Please tell me, where did you find this information?
I knew someone who'd worked for a state representative. She said the best way to contact someone in office was to make a missive (or phone call) short and concise, and to be clear about which issue I'm addressing.

This holds whether it's about upcoming vote or a personal matter that I might need help sorting out - people who have problems with the VA, for instance. She said some people ramble on for pages and pages.

This explanation lines up pretty closely with what she described.
https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-...tuents-direct-communication-with-them?share=1
 
Chicago does not exist in a vacuum. One foot from its border, anybody can buy a weapon, at 3 AM, behind Walmart, without a background check, or a waiting period, if you have the cash. And it's legal.
So you are saying that your laws in Chicago has had no impact, only because anyone can travel and get a gun?
 
The word "Infringe" to a 2nd AM enthusiast means anyone can buy a gun, period. Lawmakers wrote the word Infringe, lawmakers determine what is and what is not, not a 2nd AM free for all nut.
Lawmakers + Congress in the USA! The word 'Infringe' was written/ approved by those who wrote the U S Constitution. By law the Constitution cannot be changed by Congress without a two thirds majority approval from both Houses of Congress, followed by a thirds majority approval from the fifty U S States. Therefore, attempts to define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law, would require the same approvals....
 
How is that legal? In what state? You buying this gun from a mobile vendor, or what? Is some guy selling them from a van like an ice-cream man, except he's the ice-'em man?
Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.

BTW , great "ice'em".
 
Last edited:
I have no idea if they do, or not. What would you do to stem needless gun related deaths?
I would get to dealing with the real problems, they are complex and difficult to fix, e.g. Mental Health Issues such as depression in young adults, get the schools and legal systems to identify and segregate students and individuals that are violent, involved in gangs, have a history with police that includes any form of violence or making threats (out of the schools). Get control of violent video games, TV Show, Movies, that contain violence! Aggressively, limit access to these by kids and young adults, reinstate the draft for males 18 and older. These are just off the top of my head, but are problems are not because of guns, it is because we are raising kids to be killers in many cases.
 
Lawmakers + Congress in the USA! The word 'Infringe' was written/ approved by those who wrote the U S Constitution. By law the Constitution cannot be changed by Congress without a two thirds majority approval from both Houses of Congress, followed by a thirds majority approval from the fifty U S States. Therefore, attempts to define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law, would require the same approvals....
NO, it would not require the same approvals!
 
Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.

BTW , great "ice'em".
Ah. Not so in California. Also, I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe Cali's background checks are more thorough, too. Cali also tightened-up and increased it's gun laws, and yet it's the #1 state in the US for mass shootings. Only guessing here, but that's probably because it's one of the top 3 states for gang activity, and probly #1 for the number of gangster organizations.

We're also in the top 2 for violence among the homeless, and killings happen in homeless camps multiple times daily, like every few minutes or whatever, but they only get iced one at a time; no mass killings, and not always with guns. A while back, some guy stole an axe from someone's yard and ran into his camp chopping up everybody he saw. Not sure if anybody died, but I'm sure that guy was on something. They sit right out in the open smoking their crack pipes and stuff, and a lot of the drugs they get are "dirty" - supplemented with any kind of white powdery or crushable substance a dealer can get his hands on.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that your laws in Chicago has had no impact, only because anyone can travel and get a gun?
Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.

This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them locked and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.
 
Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.

This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them locked and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.
Then we agree that tougher gun laws will do little to impact shooting deaths! The bad guys will always find a way!
 
Examples? Specifics? Notice I qualified my comment in my post, "...define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law"
There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.

For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.

The 2nd AM was only constrictive on the federal government until it was incorporated. So the USSC in effectly changed the meaning of the AM itself. The same with other AM's.

There are many other examples too.


"Due Process" has no inclusive definition, again, that is an interpretation for the Courts to decide.
 
There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.

For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.

The 2nd AM was only constrictive on the federal government until it was incorporated. So the USSC in effectly changed the meaning of the AM itself. The same with other AM's.

There are many other examples too.


"Due Process" has no inclusive definition, again, that is an interpretation for the Courts to decide.
Nice try, but no cigar! All of your examples are by choice very abstract words and phrases. I defined the scope of my comments to include our whole country. Only one court in the land could interrupt, the second amendment differently from what is it says about our rights to bear arms....! And, unlike many of the smaller courts they are not likely to do that...You are reaching and I will spend no more time on this.
 
A mandatory cool-off period might stop a few shootings. A ban on AR-15 style rifles might stop a few mass murders. But really what we have is a societal problem where people are pissed off at the world, and rightly so.

Society in its current state is divided into the haves and the have-nots. It's generally the have-nots who are doing most of the mass shootings, although there have been a few relatively wealthy people who have done so, such as the Las Vegas shooter.

The have-nots feel powerless to do anything about their situation, and some of them are not totally averse to losing their lives just to achieve a bit of transient power over others. Most of these AR-15 murders are committed by young men who are suicidal and mad at the world. At the very least they want to feel like they matter, if only for a few minutes, and they get that through the power they gain from powerful weapons. They wouldn't get anywhere near that kind of power from any other type of weapon.

It could be that we're witnessing the beginning stages of the total breakdown of society, which could lead to revolution or civil war.
 
Last edited:
Nice try, but no cigar! I defined the scope of my comments to include our whole country. Only one court in the land could interrupt, the second amendment differently from what is it says about our rights to bear arms....! And, unlike many of the smaller courts they are not likely to do that...
You have no idea what you are talking about, although you think you do.
 
There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.

For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.

The 2nd AM was only constrictive on the federal government until it was incorporated. So the USSC in effectly changed the meaning of the AM itself. The same with other AM's.

There are many other examples too.


"Due Process" has no inclusive definition, again, that is an interpretation for the Courts to decide.
Yep, Scalia "legislated" his twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case to mean that any pinhead can own firearms, with just a few exceptions. Before that point, the 2nd Amendment was commonly accepted to be a collective right of states.
 
Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.

BTW , great "ice'em".
No gun buying expert ,here. Gun shows are unregulated in most states. I don't know if Cal does. Private sales- few states regulate them. And nothing says people can't flaunt the law.
 
Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.

This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them lockedIf and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim."

Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

****

And I must add:

Semper Fidelis, Marine

U.V.
 
I knew someone who'd worked for a state representative. She said the best way to contact someone in office was to make a missive (or phone call) short and concise, and to be clear about which issue I'm addressing.

This holds whether it's about upcoming vote or a personal matter that I might need help sorting out - people who have problems with the VA, for instance. She said some people ramble on for pages and pages.

This explanation lines up pretty closely with what she described.
https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-...tuents-direct-communication-with-them?share=1
Thanks! Here is the above post in its entirety by Carter Moore
-worked at U.S. House of Representatives

Do-people-in-Congress-read-their-constituents-direct-communication-with-them?

No, but not because of lack of interest or desire.
A Member of Congress will receive several hundred pieces of correspondence (letters, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and personal visits) in a week from constituents, lobbyists, the government, other legislators, etc. If there's a particularly controversial issue under consideration by Congress, that could easily swell into the thousands. It's unreasonable for any person, no matter how dedicated, to digest that much mail.
Every Member of Congress hires a staffer, known as a Legislative Correspondent, whose job it is to receive, sort, and respond to every communication. Unless it's a particularly asinine or irrelevant issue, or is too incoherent to understand (which happens a lot), the goal is to respond to every constituent who contacts the office. Most LCs I worked with usually aimed for a communication to be received, filed, and responded to no more than two weeks from the date of receipt - less than one week if they had a form response ready to go for a major topic (eg, immigration reform, health care, the budget, etc.).
When it comes to the Member of Congress, many have their staffers prepare a daily summary of the issues raised by their constituents, and then get a sample of the letters which came in. The Member of Congress can then opt to respond personally, and usually will with a phone call. A lot of Members that I'm aware of also opt to have the staffers prepare a written response, and then will write a quick, personal note to the constituent in the margins or signature block.
Of course, this all varies from office to office. I can think of a couple of Members who were particularly atrocious at providing personal responses to constituents (and off the top of my head, most of them are shockingly no longer in Congress) and others who made dedicated blocks of time on their calendars to respond to constituents, if not for several hours after the end of the day.

If you want to improve your chances at getting a personal response from a Member of Congress, here are a few tips (copied from another answer): How Do I Get My Congressman (or Senator) to Respond to Me?
  • tick to your representatives! Don't blast all of Congress and hope for one of them to get back to you. If you're not their constituent, they aren't obligated to give you any attention.
  • Avoid signing petitions†. Members of Congress will usually respond to the organization which sent in the petition, not the signatories; and if they do respond to each person who signed the petition, it will be a form response. If you want to write in on an issue, make it a personal letter.
  • Don't rant. Once again, Members of Congress and their staff are incredibly busy, and a 20 page diatribe on [x] with LOTS OF CAPITALIZATION and underlining and accusations in bold that they're not doing their jerb are going to be ignored. My rule of thumb is in three pages or less (or 500 words if an e-mail), you should be able to explain who you are, what your issue is, and then...
  • Be very, very clear in explaining what it is you want your Member of Congress to do. Do you want them to support or oppose a bill? Do you want them to introduce legislation‡? Do you want them to contact a Federal entity on your behalf to get a response on [x] issue? Would you like to arrange a meeting to explain the issue in more depth? This will prevent you from receiving a form response.
  • After a sufficient amount of time has passed between when you sent your letter/e-mail and when it reasonably ought to have arrived at the office, pick up the phone and call. Ask them if they've received the letter and, if so, when you can expect a response (or be contacted for a meeting, etc.). If they haven't yet received the letter, very quickly summarize the issue and, if needed, ask if someone is available to speak with you. Go from there, and be polite throughout the call.
  • If you receive a response from your Member of Congress that you think is insufficient (eg, a form response despite making a specific ask), pick up the phone and call. Explain - calmly - the issue you had raised, what you had asked of the Congressman or Senator, and why you feel the response was insufficient. Ask to speak with a staff member - and if one is not available, ask for their information and request a call back. Keep calling until you're satisfied with their response.
† For more information, feel free to consult my answer to "Does writing your congressman or senator really do any good, or is it merely a diversionary smokescreen to make the average citizen believe that they have some voice in the legislative process?"
‡ You'll get bonus points if you've drafted sample legislation for them.
 


Back
Top