- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,164
- Likes
- 460
I got that rag too.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I just went to her site and posted this...
_____________________________
Dear Senator Warren,
I am concerned with your recent communication to me. It shows a disdain for a valid concern of a constituent on an important issue.
Your comment, “ I also don't think anyone needs military-grade assault weapons to hunt or Rambo-style high capacity magazines to protect their family from intruders”, is not only inaccurate but is also offensive and strangely ironic.
I don’t know what you mean by “military grade”, but I am assuming that means weapons which are currently issued by the United States Military. Currently, the US Military issues an M4 which is a fully automatic rifle, i.e., a “machine gun”. Machine guns have been essentially illegal to possess since 1934.
Also, your association with “Rambo” is both infantile and ironic. The infantile nature is obvious; responding to my concern with mention of a fictional character. But as long as you brought up the issue, it is intensely ironic that the character John Rambo walked into a town and was viciously harassed by the police for no reason. Sounds familiar.
Finally, this issue is more important than your “thoughts” and my “needs”. This is about the Constitution of the United States and your oath to defend it and my rights to live under it.
I am more sorry today than on the day you were elected to represent me.
Sincerely yours,
Did you not get the memo?......Elizabeth Warren is a douche
No, it isn't... If enough people write, they get scared they've gone too far and at least will stay quiet on the issue.I don't bother writing to the commie politicians. It's a waste of time.
Senator Warren
I am also deeply troubled by these tragedies that concern you; However,
I would hope that you would act from an informed stance and not simply
choose the popular and easy answer.
The statistics you quote are disingenuously skewed toward an
anti-firearm stance. As you give no citation for the particular search
criteria used to produce those statistics, I reviewed multiple scenarios
to find the data set used, showing that suicides are included in your
statistics. World statistics show that among similar groups of people,
suicide rates are not effected overall by access to any particular
method. What does this mean? Removing firearms from a population will
not measurably reduce the suicide rate but will only cause a despondent
person to choose another method. We need better mental health access,
not firearms control to combat youth suicide (and suicide in general).
None of these data points tell the true story of why these deaths are
occurring, only the method. To find a real solution we must research the
root cause and then act intelligently to eradicate it.
Also, you propose reauthorizing the 'assault' weapons ban. Given the
fact that the firearms covered are determined by simple cosmetic
features and those are used in a statistically insignificant percentage
of deaths, what demonstrable positive effect can be shown? I propose
that the effect can be shown from data collected during the 1994-2004
ban - there was no demonstrable positive effect. The only result from
the 1994-2004 ban on modern sporting rifles was the criminalization of
otherwise law abiding citizens.
On the gun show loophole, there simply is none. All transactions handled
by a Federally licensed dealer are required to have a background check.
Performance of the background checks are strictly adhered to as the
BATFE is relentless in prosecuting bad FFL dealers.
On personal transfers, your constituency here in Massachusetts currently
has a de facto background check in place for all personal transfers. All
legal transfers must occur between licensed individuals, whose licenses
are quickly revoked upon any infraction. This system is a burden to the
tax payers in Massachusetts and I ask you to investigate the results of
this system - it has solved no crimes.
If the background check system here in Massachusetts has produced no
results, would a national system? Very doubtful, as none of the recent
tragedies would have been prevented by such laws. The only result would
be to further burden the lawful firearms enthusiast with bureaucratic
red tape and higher tax burdens for all. Those who commit violent acts
with firearms are not fettered by laws and would simply continue to
skirt the law.
A true common sense approach would be a program allowing better mental
health access for those in need and to give doctors the tools necessary
to report individuals to the current background check systems (NICS).
The common thread among recent shootings has been the shooters mental
health issues and their doctors inability to respond due to HIPAA law
restrictions. This is the root cause of the problem you have
highlighted, not access to modern sporting arms by lawful citizens.
I welcome an open conversation on this subject, not only with yourself
but all of my elected representatives. Please respond to my concerns
with a directed message that shows you and your office are concerned
with all people you represent. I understand that your schedule is full
and an aid would likely respond but form letters are not the forum for
this important and polarizing subject
Thank you for you time and consideration,
Aaron Pasteris
No, it isn't... If enough people write, they get scared they've gone too far and at least will stay quiet on the issue.
If they are getting nothing but glowing support, they will bark at the moon and encourage the other ones...
FLOOD THEM.