A good friend of mine wrote her congressman regarding the push for gun control. His response is exactly what I want to see from our politicians
Dear Mrs. [******],
There has been a lot of talk about gun control and the Second Amendment following the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
First and foremost, no words can describe the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Connecticut. With the loss of so many innocent lives, especially the young children, my prayers continue to go out to the families and the community around them. My wife, Wendy, is a school teacher and as parents, neither of us can begin to imagine the pain that those affected families are experiencing.
During my 37 years in law enforcement, I have seen criminals- mentally ill and otherwise- do terrible, heinous things. Whether it is with a gun, a lead pipe, a kitchen knife, or a bomb, if an individual is set on harming others, he will always find a way. Knowing that is one of the hardest parts of being in law enforcement.
In the aftermath of tragedies, people often ask what more law enforcement agencies could have done to prevent this type of crime. When the violence is gun-related, some react by pushing to increase restrictions on gun owners and sportsmen.
I understand the desire to act, unfortunately, knee-jerk, reactionary laws do nothing to truly deter crime. Instead, they only restrict the freedoms of decent citizens who live each and every day abiding by the law. For instance, the debate now centers on "assault weapons" and whether banning them would have prevented Sandy Hook. What you don't often hear in debates is that the only meaningful difference other than appearance between an AR-15 "assault rifle" and a .30-06 hunting rifle is that the .30-06 does more physical damage to whatever it hits. Both weapons are semi-automatic meaning they have the same rate of fire – one round is discharged each time the trigger is pulled. The key is stopping individuals from killing, not simply changing the tool they use to do it.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." That is a right that our Founders carefully included to guarantee this great nation's citizens the right to protect their families and property. For this reason, I am a strong supporter of our Second Amendment and I will continue to protect it.
Not only will the President's proposals violate Americans' Second Amendment rights, they won't fix the problem. That is why I am working actively on legislation- legislation I started writing long before Sandy Hook- that improves the way law enforcement and others deal with mental health issues. Addressing the startling overlap between our criminal justice and our mental health systems and the need for reform is such a universally recognized need that I have been working with Senator Al Franken (D-MN) on this bill. Although he may be a liberal Democrat in the Senate and I may be a conservative, House Republican, we are committed to finding ways to improve and expand our legislation because if we're serious about preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook, it's going to be our efforts on mental health that achieve it.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this difficult subject. In the future, I hope you will continue to contact me about other issues affecting the federal government that are important to you.
Sincerely,
Richard Nugent
Member of Congress
Emphasis mine.
Mr. Nugent is the type of representative we need, and in that end, he’s the type of representative we need to support. I will be writing him a thank you letter even though I am not in his district.
Comments
Robb, I agree that's exactly the kind of representative we need. Sounds like Mr. Nugent is a calmer relative of Ted.
TS
**
I believe that individuals should have the right to purchase certain types of firearms for self-defense. I also believe that concealed carry permits should be an option for some people. I also believe, however, that some common sense gun violence prevention measures are compatible with our 2nd Amendment guarantees.
This legislative session I will be supporting two proposals regarding guns. The first is a ban high capacity ammunition magazines. The second is a proposal to ban certain semi-automatic weapons. I believe neither high capacity magazines nor certain semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense or hunting purposes.
However, as a family physician I do agree that these incidents should inspire us to look more closely at our mental health care system and begin discussing ways to improve it.
**
In other words, she's toeing the party Feinsteinline.
Dear Senator Bennett...
In your deliberations please keep in mind the common elements that enabled these recent tragedies...both involved individuals who were deeply disturbed, (and I think it has been reported that both were either using or had used psychotropic medications, with one individual having conversations with psychiatric personnel at the university, and one whose mother was taking steps to have him institutionalized)...
I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of disturbed individuals....there also should be a process considered for keeping over zealous politicians from declaring any opponent to be "disturbed" in order to discredit and disarm them.
Also, there should be no requirement for background checks for transfers of guns between family members (father to son, daughter, grandchild, etc.) or face to face transfers between private parties that are NOT at gun shows. Such checks would constitute a registration scheme, an unnecessary expense, and a nuisance to innocent law abiding citizens, and would clearly not have prevented any of the multiple shootings that are of concern to us all.
It is wrong to punish, harass and limit the civil rights of the tens of millions of lawful gun owners because of the actions of a tiny handful of disturbed individuals.
The other common element in these very rare tragedies was the impossibly illogical "gun free zone." Those with criminal intent or mental illness clearly are not going to pay any attention to a gun free zone sign...but the law abiding individuals including school staff or parent volunteers or off duty police should be able to carry concealed in virtually any location in this country...as a deterrent and as a first response capability, especially in schools. Children are plainly more precious than money, and money is routinely guarded by armed security personnel.
Don't use these events as a cheap excuse to punish millions of innocent law abiding citizens for the actions of a tiny handful of disturbed individuals.
Modern Sporting rifles like the AR do serve a number of useful purposes for personal defense, not just hunting and sport, as evidenced by the fact that the police (who are non-aggressors and not expected to attack anyone) carry AR platform weapons, and the Department of Homeland Security has advertised to purchase 7000 of them explicitly for "personal defense" at "close quarters"...AR's in the hands of law abiding citizens are effective for stopping home invasions, and are easily handled by women and people of small stature who would have difficulty handling and dealing with the recoil of a larger and heavier shotgun.
If you yourself are entitled to be protected by armed security with semi automatic weapons (or in DC I expect they carry full automatic weapons) consider that I and my family have the same rights to defend our own lives with the best commonly available weapons, of our own choosing, since we don't have a coterie of armed security personnel around us at home or at work as you do.
If you are asked why anyone needs an AR with a 30 round clip, ask yourself why Rosa Parks "needed" to sit in the front of that bus....
It was her civil right as an American...and the same applies to me and to any law abiding citizen...
James D. Huggins
4231 Morning Glory Road
Colorado Springs, CO
80920
719-260-1389
I see how it is possible for a frequently confused person to infer such a thing from Mr Nugent's statement, "they won't fix the problem".
However, that's not our argument at all. Our argument is that their proposed solutions will not produce any measurable improvement in the situation. For all their 'if it saves one life' rhetoric, we can easily counter with examples of lives saved that would not be possible under their plan. We can show, based on history, similar plans and their costs in public treasure, civil liberties, and yes, real human life as compared to the promised benefits which never seem to materialize.