Email Responses - Let's see them

joppaj said:

She was my Delegate when I lived in Joppatown. I generally expect her to vote however the Democrats tell her to.

Click to expand...

Mary-Dulany James refused to tell citizens where she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

Click to expand...

zmayhem said:

Hello,

This message is in response to an email I received from you regarding your stance on weapons. In your email you stated:
"I believe strongly in the right to bear arms. But, like all constitutional rights, this isn't absolute. I do not believe that private citizens should be able to purchase weapons of war that can out-shoot our police officers and kill dozens of people within seconds, as recent tragedies have proven."

The weapons that citizens can legally purchase are not "weapons of war" as you call them. True weapons of war are fully automatic. The only options for a citizen to own a fully automatic weapon is to purchase one that is very outdated and was produced before 1986 and costs about $10,000 or more, or invest about $20,000 dollars into jumping through all of the loopholes, fbi background checks, checking with local law enforcement and various other tasks that are required. True "weapons of war" also have many more advances and capabilities than the weapons average citizens own, and most likely better technology in the form of scopes and other accessories that common citizens simply can't afford and/or do not feel that they need.

You also stated "The Newtown shooter, the Columbine killers and the gunman in Aurora all used assault weapons designed for our troops on the frontlines."

This is also not true. In fact, NONE of the shooters in any of the events you cited used weapons designed for our troops on the front lines. Of the weapons used in Columbine (during the previous assault weapons ban) one was specifically named in the ban, and one was invented DURING the ban and designed for citizens, not for the military. Both of the "assault weapons" used there were low end 9mm weapons and no more powerful than a 9mm handgun. Neither has ever been standard issue by any branch of our military nor has either passed the testing to my knowledge to be reliable enough for military use. The Tec-DC9 was specifically banned by name in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The magazines for this weapon held 10, 20, 32, 50 or 72 rounds. The manufacturer went out of business in 1993, ending the production of that weapon.

The other "assault weapon" used in Columbine was a Hi-Point 995 carbine, also in 9mm. The Hi-Point 995 carbine was developed for the civilian market DURING the 1994 ban, and it's magazines held only 10 rounds. The weapon is available currently for $285, one of the cheapest carbines that one can purchase. Ironically, Dylan Klebold (the carrier of the Tec-DC9 which supported the high capacity magazines) fired 55 rounds from his 9mm weapon that day. Eric Harris, who carried the 9mm carbine with ONLY 10 round magazine, fired 96 shots. The shooter with only the 10 round magazines fired almost TWICE as many shots as the shooter who had the high capacity magazines. To a person with no real knowledge of weapons, this may seem crazy. To somebody with ANY experience with firearms, it is common knowledge that it only takes seconds to remove an empty magazine, replace it with a loaded one, and work the action of a weapon so it is ready to fire again. This fact makes restricting magazine sizes irrelevant, because doing so will not stop or deter a shooter, it will just cause them to take a 1-3 second break whenever their magazine is empty. Unless of course they don't really care too much about a new "ban" or "law" since they are already committing several crimes and breaking many laws while they are in the process of performing a mass shooting. In that case, they probably will have larger magazines if they choose to use them, since they are just as widely available in this country as the same drugs which have been "banned" for years here.

You also stated in your message that "The gunmen in Tucson, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and Newtown were all armed with high-capacity magazines. In fact, the Newtown shooter was armed with enough ammunition to kill every student in the school."

I just pretty much hit on the whole "high capacity magzine" topic above. Instead, here is a link to a video which shows how quickly somebody who practices can change a magazine, about one second. While most people probably can't do it quite that quickly, the average person with no practice can easily do it in 3 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI . I hope that you watch that video and realize just how quick it is to do.

I understand that the problems we are facing are not simple. At the same time, however, look at the people who are committing these crimes. They are CRIMINALS! The act of mass shooting in itself takes a very sick individual, especially shooting young children. All of these attacks however occur in "Gun Free Zones", places that advertise and are widely known to be Gun Free. Places where these sick individuals come to inflict the most damage and loss of life as they can, knowing that at least for a few minutes there will be no opposition. When police officers who are armed with firearms come to stop them (or a citizen with a concealed carry permit like http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html ), most of the shooters kill themselves to avoid a confrontation or capture. I, along with many others, feel that concealed carry would at least give us a chance to fight back. After all, the police who are on their way to the scene will be bringing firearms to combat the shooter, they just won't get there in time to save all of the lives that somebody already present on the scene could save. When the police are minutes away and people are being killed every few seconds, I know I would rather have a weapon and a chance to stop the gunman. At the very least I could draw his attention and let others escape while I am engaging him, instead of just trying to hide and hoping I don't become one of the victims killed.

Again, I respect your opinion Dutch. I really hope that you do some research, because as I have shown here your previous response to me showed that a lot of the information you sent me was simply not correct. Not everybody is a "gun person", so I don't hold that against you. You don't have to be a member of the NRA, or even a person who enjoys shooting. However you do have to respect the rights of others who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. You are a public official, elected by the people to represent us. Please do not react irrationally to a tragedy and base any decisions on how you vote on emotion. The mentally ill people and criminals who perpetrate these acts are to blame. Whether they use a bomb, a machete, a handgun with any type of magazine, a rifle with any type of magazine...no law or ban will ever completely stop these sick individuals. We need to focus on spotting warning signs and taking the proper actions early on to address these warning signs. This also will not always work 100% of the time. Until our government can guarantee us that this will NEVER happen and that criminals will never pose a threat to us or our loved ones, I feel that law abiding citizens who pass the background checks and have no mental illnesses SHOULD be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. This will at least give them and even the people around them who choose not to carry a chance to live. I'm not saying that every person should carry a gun or should own one, some people will never like guns or would never feel comfortable carrying one. That is their right, and it's fine with me, but I guarantee that should a situation ever arise where a civilian who was concealed carrying saved their life or the life of somebody they loved, they would appreciate that person being there and be thankful that they were a concealed carrier.

I really hope that you choose to become more educated about these important issues and respect the thoughts and opinions of those who you represent. There is no cut and dry answer to stop the criminals, and there is no easy solution. A "ban" will not stop illegal guns flowing into our country anymore than it has stopped the illegal flow of drugs. As long as criminals have access to these "assault weapons", I feel that it is only right that law abiding citizens should have access to legally purchase and register the same guns in the case that we should need them to defend ourselves, our lives, or our loved ones. Please give it some thought...

Sincerely,
Zach Watkins

Click to expand...

mr h said:

She considers herself a "Blue Dog", and gets a "C" from NRA-ILA... Seems to be more about limiting governmental reach, than anything else.

Interesting item I found...



Can I get a "harumph"??

Click to expand...

Thank you for contacting Senator Ron Young's office regarding your position on gun control laws.

He recognizes the seriousness of this issue and the impact it is having on our local community, as well as our nation. Senator Young believes very strongly that private citizens should be prohibited from possessing automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Additionally, the Senator feels that gun shows as well as retail outlets that sell firearms should be held to the same strict criteria regarding to whom these weapons may be sold.

I will make sure Senator Young receives a copy of your email so he can review your comments firsthand. Again, thank you taking the time to share your views regarding this grave issue facing our nation.

Click to expand...

mr h said:

I'm finding votesmart.com to be pretty comprehensive in researching their records. Lots of information compiled there, plus links out to other materials & records.

Click to expand...

zmayhem said:

I know there are other sites out there and methods to do research, let's be honest though a lot of people won't put any extra effort forth to research on their own. I think just having a quick link they can click and have a list of names with something simple like "for", "against", or "neutral" may help us get some extra votes to get certain people in or out of office when we need to.

Click to expand...

zmayhem said:

Might be a good idea for somebody to make a "Dummy Sheet" with just a list of names of all who represent us on a state and federal level, and whether they are "For", "Against", or "Undecided" on our Second Amendment rights. Then when it comes time to vote, the people who don't really read all the posts and don't take an interest enough on their own to write emails and contact their legislators will still have an easy "dummy sheet" to let them know where everybody really stands so they can vote accordingly.

Click to expand...