Utterly stupid response from liberal senator

df53141

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
164
Reaction score
85
In my email to him, I strongly opposed any firearm regulation, yet here is the stupid response. My understanding his stuff is just too lazy to read my email and just sent me a generic response (I assume most of them would draft two different responses depending on the email they get from their constituents) Also John Dingell is going to strongly support the Obama proposal because he is going to retire in 2014, accoding to people who are close to him (should have done that in 1964).:mad:

Folks, we must keep up the fight and not let our guard down, especially pressuring these senators up for reelection in 2014, also anyone from West Virgina should send an angry email to Senator Manchin every week!
>>>>

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 recently 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.

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 has to 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 children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov
 
Register to hide this ad
With that kind of Liberals is better not to argue and try to explain our different point of view. I suggest you to do what I did with my Senator Bill Nelson here in Florida, I wrote a letter telling him that I will not vote for him, nor my wife, my son, my parents and many of my friends. Toll him that I will do whatever is possible to impede his reelection.
 
My angry response:

Dear Staff member of Senator Levin:

I am very angry to receive your email threatening to disarm law abiding gun owners. I will donate funds to NRA and definitely would only support conservative candidates in the future. At the same time, I will also consider moving my small business to free states such as Texas. I am tired of liberals like you because you are pandering to UAW maffia (lots of UAW members hate UAW and democrats), gun toting criminals in Detroit and illegal aliens, because they are the backbone of the democratic party!

Have a nice day!
 
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.



Does anyone else see what's wrong with this answer?


If you are placed on the so called "Terrorist Watch List", you cannot even find out WHY you are put on that list, or How to be removed from it.

The DHLS can put you on it and you'll never know why...Your neighbor can have a grudge against you, make a call to the DHLS and say you have lots and lots of guns and ammo. You will now be considered a potential Terrorist.

Remember how often Janet Napalanto (sp) has said.."See something, report it". Remember also, she said returning servicemen are potential terrorists, because they know how to use guns?

You/me will therefore be banned from obtaining ANY type of firearm, and we won't even know why.

This Senator is bad for us. He said he is the co-sponsor...who is the other sponsor? Time to nip this one in the bud now.


WuzzFuzz
 
This Senator is bad for us. He said he is the co-sponsor...who is the other sponsor?

Bill co-sponsors:

Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. MURPHY, and Ms. WARREN
 
New Yorkistan went 2 for 2 on senators signing on to this rubbish (just in case any of you thought otherwise for some strange reason).
 
Senator Levin (Carl) has been on the
wrong side of the gun issue for a long time.

It got to the point that, when I either send him a letter,
or email, I tell him not to bother with a response.

Guess what? He always sends me a response,
the type that I have come to expect from him.
 
Senator Levin (Carl) has been on the
wrong side of the gun issue for a long time.

It got to the point that, when I either send him a letter,
or email, I tell him not to bother with a response.

Guess what? He always sends me a response,
the type that I have come to expect from him.

Probably because neither he, nor his staff, have read your letter enough to know that you don't want a response! My guess is that they read just enough to see that you are pro second amendment, and send the "boiler plate" response letter that they consider appropriate for "gun nuts.

Best,
Rick
 
This is what happens when we the people let our elected officials decide what's best for us. Their one vote decides what happens for millions of votes..see the math? They have become ego maniacs they think they know what's best for the masses because some how they are smarter the us common folk. Fight back with votes, funny how when you say "I'm going to make sure you are not reelected" BAM you get results. Try telling them your opinions and see how much reaction you get...a smile, some bs reply and zero results.
 
Durbin? Yep, sounds like him...

Well, yes it does. Here is Durbin's response to me:

"Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention in light of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share with all Americans a profound sense of sorrow at the senseless act of violence committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The nation mourns this event and many Americans wonder what can be done to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.

I am an original cosponsor of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act which would reinstate a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban on multi-round magazines expired along with the federal assault weapons ban in 2004. I am a cosponsor of a bill that would reinstate the ban on assault weapons and would expand the definition of assault weapons to close loopholes that allow gun manufacturers to work around the previous ban.

I support universal gun background checks, which prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers. I am a cosponsor of “terror gap” legislation that would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny gun sales to individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

The majority of Americans and the majority of thoughtful gun owners and hunters agree that there must be reasonable limits on gun ownership and weapons. We must institute common-sense limits, such as barring those with a history of mental instability, those with a history of violent crime or who are subject to restraining orders, and those whose names have been placed on a terrorist watch list from owning weapons. Straw purchasers and gun dealers should face firm penalties. There should be limits on how many firearms may be purchased in one month. Those who own firearms that are within the reach of children should have protective locks on their weapons.

The United States Supreme Court has raised questions about the Second Amendment and the protections and responsibilities under this Constitutional amendment. I plan to hold a Senate Judiciary Hearing in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Subcommittee to address this Constitutional question and how to forward on gun control.

My heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families in Newtown, Connecticut, as we remember the children and teachers who lost their lives.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator"
 
I really hate to say it but I don't even try, with Senators like Menendez and Lautenberg I already know that anything I have to say falls on deaf ears.
 
carl levin is an idiot

i got the same reply from carl levin last night. i sent him one back :P. this is what I wrote:


I am a firm believer in gun safety and responsible gun ownership. I also believe common sense is and should be a part of owning and operating a firearm, from bb gun to .50cal rifle. I like our founding fathers am a firm believer in the common sense of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was put into place to give citizens a safeguard against government tyranny and to allow us the people a fighting chnce against said government in the form of an uprising. This is the true purpose of the 2nd amendment and as a responisible citizen I will continue to use common sense to see that it remains unadulterated. I should hope that a citizen such as yourself sworn to protect and uphold the sanctitiy of our most basic rights would use your common sense to deny such ignorance as obamas proposals. I believe in background checks. As Im sure you know the killer in the most recent tragedy in Newton was denied a firearm by way of background check. He then resorted to murder in order to obtain the firearms he used in the shooting. I am sure you are also aware that the ar-15 in his possession was not used in the shooting and never left the trunk of his car.. So why is it that certain officials are going after rifles such as these? You can try justifying it as common sense all you want but for the rest of us who know the true definition of common sense that is just plain ignorance. I urge you to rethingk your position on these matters. If not, well, re-election for you is going to get harder this i can guarantee. We are a nation that never forgets.

God bless America and the great state of Michigan.
 
I got the very same response from him. This is what I responded to him with:

Hi Senator

And thanks for responding to my letter. Some of the laws proposed seem sensible enough. But what makes anyone think that a criminal will adhere to these laws? And why should those of us who abide the law have to be penalized because of those who don’t? There are laws against marijuana, meth amphetamine, robbery , rape etc. I think you get the idea. A law doesn’t make these crimes go away anymore than it keeps illegals from coming here from Mexico. Here is a concern I really have about a weapons ban. If there are bans and efforts are made to enforce them – will people be required to turn in their illegal guns? Will attempts be made to confiscate them? I think you know where I’m going with this. The definition of criminal could drastically change in the not too distant future. I’m also not sure everyone would just accept this notion of weapons bans. We need civil unrest like we need a hole in the head. Hey I live in this country too! I would love to see things stay at an even keel and have peace and safety.

Just a parting thought – there has been much talk about the second amendment and how important our hunting rights are. The second amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It had everything to do with the people being capable to defend their country from other countries and also to keep in check government over reach. I’ve heard lots of gun control people laugh as though that is a ridiculous idea – that our government would ever try to step over the boundary where no government should ever go. As I watch the news I’ve noticed one thing and that is that governments are run by human men and women. And their aims are not always honorable. Sir that idea is why the 2nd amendment was added. There have been lots of changes in the fifty years I’ve been around. To ban guns which do have a useful purpose in the hands of responsible people is a bad idea. How many more laws do we need to keep us safe?

I do appreciate your time

Mark
 
Back
Top