Feinstein AWB - Letter to senator

[XD40Colorado]

What do you guys think of this letter, to my state Senator:

Dear Senator Udall:
As you no doubt are aware, the duty of an elected official such as yourself is to uphold the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights and values of his constituents.

I firmly believe that your proposed firearms restrictions seriously infringe upon the right to bear arms as set forth in the Second Amendment. If we begin chipping away at and limiting the provisions of one very crucial amendment, what is to come next? Will the First Amendment guaranteeing our right to freedom of speech disappear? What happens to Fourth Amendment, protecting against unwarranted searches, when the next president or radical senator decides it doesn't fit their political agenda? Furthermore, your proposed legislation is a direct contradiction to the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As I see it, the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms, so how can a law be passed limiting this amendment without violating the principles of the tenth?

In reality, restricting firearms, and especially Concealed Carry licenses makes us all more vulnerable. A criminal is not going to see the "No guns allowed" signs and heed them. If he's bent on committing murder, why would he care about a gun charge on his record? Meanwhile, law abiding citizens like yours truly will leave our guns in a safe place for fear of legal penalties and the repercussions of such. What does that mean? It means that the potential gunman will go unopposed on his crime spree. There are NUMEROUS examples of CCW holders actually helping to stop rampages: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html, http://www.abc4.com/content/news/to...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx, etc. Perform a Google search and you will find plenty of instances.

Guns are not the cause of the problem. A gun is a tool, in much the same way as a hammer, computer, or subway train. Does a hammer get up and build a house of its own accord? Does a computer spontaneously write a research paper? Should we ban subways from large cities because of the rash of recent incidents where people are pushed onto the tracks?
The issue is more deeply-rooted than simply "gun control", and needs further, deeper, more thorough examination. Perhaps restricting violent video games and movies such as the "Saw" franchise would be of more help?
I implore you, as your constituent, and who places his faith in you to protect my civil rights, do not take the Constitution lightly
I will continue to write until I receive a response.

Sincerely,

ME (lol)

 

[Closing The Gap]

Perhaps restricting violent video games and movies such as the "Saw" franchise would be of more help?

I think stepping on the 1st amendment is not a good bargaining point.

 

[TDL]

First, emphasize that there is no evidence whatsoever that these measures work.

What happens to Fourth Amendment, protecting against unwarranted searches,

Second, while you are correct on the implications to the rest of the bill of rights, I think you want to limit the discussion on the first amendment, since people rationalize that "words don't kill."

Zero in on the Fourth fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. They make it harder to convict criminals and let them out on the street. but like the second amendment the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth give us absolutely necessary protections and LOTS of crime and harm can be associated with the fact that those exist.

Ask the question: do we want a future president to surround themselves with children and explain how they are harmed by the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments in order to reduce those rights?