simonov jr
New member
Here's Luger's response to my prostate exam of an email titled, "Luger lies to me through the mail".
Senator_Lugar@lugar.senate.gov writes:
<< Dear Mr. (simonov):
Thank you for recently contacting me regarding my votes on the
Juvenile Justice bill. I appreciate the time you took to share your
thoughts with me and this opportunity to respond.
Considering how I blasted you in my correspondence, I'm actually kind of impressed that you responded. Either you or one of your staffers gets a little credit for not giving up on a voter...
Recently reported data shows that during the 1997-98 school year,
3930 children who carried firearms into schools were expelled under
the requirements of the Gun Free Schools Act, which Congress has
passed. Last school year--the deadliest year ever in our nation's
classrooms--Indiana educators confiscated 522 weapons from students
according to a study by the Indianapolis Star. I am very concerned
that violence in some schools is preventing children from focusing on
learning and achieving the best education that they can.
Obviously those kids would have been expelled anyway without Federal involvement. Isn't that like taking credit for all the fires put out because you outlawed them? That would have been done anyway. As for last year being the deadliest in our nations classrooms "ever", what is your source for this assertion? My understanding is that youth violence with firearms is at a 20-year low. Have you checked DOJ statistics? Still, how is preventing teachers and principals (who are law-abiding and have actually stopped shootings in the past) from legally carrying in schools going to prevent kids from focusing? Aren't you making these schools havens for these rampages, as you assure a steady pool of defenseless victims? Why are shootings always in these "Gun-free" areas, ie Post Offices, schools, Day Care, etc? Conversely, since you seem to think the presence of guns causes violence, why are there never shootings at the dreaded Gun Show? Trap shoot? Skeet range?
As you noted, I voted for Sense of the Senate amendments supporting
reform of our firearms laws and enforcement. These amendments
supported legislative movement on the Juvenile Justice bill that the
Senate passed last year with my support by a vote of 73-25. While
certain advocacy groups and the media have portrayed the Juvenile
Crime bill as being solely about gun control, most of the bill focuses
on other measures designed to reduce crime. For example, a measure
that I authored: the Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment program
(JSAT), which provides funding for community corrections-based drug
treatment. This kind of treatment has been shown in studies to
dramatically drive down drug and crime recidivism. The Juvenile Crime
bill also contains funding for innovative local and state-based
programs to prevent crime and to encourage diligent enforcement of our
laws.
Okay, what about the provisions that affect me, who is NEITHER a "Juvenile" or involved in the "Justice" system? Perhaps you can explain what my wife and I have to do with causing this "problem"?
In your correspondence to me, you indicated concern that I have
supported both Sense of the Senate amendments and that this represents
a change from my position on Second Amendment rights. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Since my days as mayor of Indianapolis
during the turbulent late 1960's and early 1970's, I have held the
belief that you can have legislation that keeps felons from having
guns and keeps law enforcement officers from being outgunned without
sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens to
possess, buy, sell, or use firearms.
Interesting use of words. You say you want to prevent felons from having guns. So does NRA, so do we all. NICS accomplishes that. Yet when referring to "law enforcement officers being outgunned", you don't seem to be referring to "felons" anymore. You seem to be referring to "sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens". So it seems you are concerned that I and other law-abiding citizens will "outgun" law-enforcement officers? If I am law-abiding, why should you or law enforcement have anything to fear from me? Furthermore, since the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting but rather the prevention of government-tyranny, isn't the citizenry SUPPOSED to have law enforcement officers "outgunned"? Apparently you will "go to the mat" for my right to own a .22 bolt action rifle, perhaps a Daisy Air Rifle. This is why I think you either have no grasp of the real meaning of the intent of the Bill of Rights, OR...I'm afraid you have embraced the Clinton-Gore philosophy of "selective memory". I think we both know what I'm talking about here.
Previously, I voted for the Reed
Sense of the Senate because I agree with its language stating that the
Juvenile Crime bill should be considered in conference with the
purpose of "limiting access to firearms by juveniles, convicted
felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing or
possessing firearms." Also previously, I did not support a Boxer
Sense of the Senate on gun control because I believed it to be
redundant to a Coverdell amendment that was accepted by a vote of 96-1
noting the lack of prosecution of gun crimes by the current
Administration.
So you had cover. Why won't you vote with us, the law abiding voters you often cite in your letters, when it COUNTS? When something is really on the line? Have you gotten so attached to your comfortable seat in Washington that you have forgotten why you went in the first place?
The Lott and Daschle Sense of the Senate amendments were not
either-or propositions. They advocate movement on the Juvenile
Justice bill which I support, and they encourage a comprehensive
approach to the enforcement of firearms offenses which is the key to
reducing gun violence by criminals. Both passed with support from
Republicans and Democrats.
During consideration of juvenile justice and education issues, some
have suggested that any legislation involving firearms must be
rejected outright without consideration of whether it has the
potential to reduce violence in schools or reduce criminals access to
firearms. I believe the American people as individuals have a right
to bear arms, and I would not support a movement to remove that right.
Please define "a movement to remove that right". You know as well as I that many of those you are voting with, such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Boxer are part of such a movement. They will TELL you so, if you don't already know. Since your record is in no way stopping the incremental, salami-slicing away of our right to bear arms, what are you trying to say? Sir, to put it more succinctly, why do YOU think the founding fathers didn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be REMOVED"? Precisely because they foresaw that slick political types would use that language to INFRINGE that right over time. Why don't you follow the OATH you took not to infringe that right?
There is a consensus in our society, however, that convicted criminals
should be stopped from buying guns. Some advocacy groups seem to
confuse the issue of stopping criminals from having guns and the
Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to possess, purchase,
sell, or use firearms in a lawful manner.
Okay, what do high-capacity magazines bought by law-abiding citizens have to do with it? Is that confusing the issue? The police seem to "need" them, but not the rest of us. Does the NRA seem confused to you? They INITIATED the instant check before most people ever got on the bandwagon. They INITIATED the Project Exile concept for Richmond. What have certain OTHER advocacy groups done other than go after the innocent and law-abiding? Are they confused too?
Our goals should be that any law abiding citizen of age should be
able to buy a gun under prevailing state law with as little
inconvenience as possible. And any criminal who attempts to buy a gun
illegally should be detected, arrested, and prosecuted.
No problem there. NICS already does this. Yet YOU (not a Democrat, YOU) voted to commend the Million Mom March, which if it had one message, is that me and my family should be registered for owning guns. Registered like a criminal. Do you perhaps see why I might have a problem with that Sir?
I don't believe these goals should be seen as mutually exclusive.
As a society that both suffers from extraordinary rates of gun
violence but also has a long-standing and Constitutionally-guaranteed
right to bear arms, we should be willing to devote the requisite
resources and energy to achieving both goals.
I honestly can't tell what you REALLY believe. I wish your rhetoric was the truth, I honestly do. I don't even know if this is your writing or not, but I am mainly interested in what you do with the VOTE we the people entrust you with. I don't know who is influencing you. Maybe you have been in Washington too long. Maybe you think that Lee Atwater was right, and gun owners have nowhere else to go. I can assure you we do. What is so damn hard about just admitting that you don't see the 2nd amendment as a right at all, but rather as a priveledge that you and your piers can dice at your political discretion? I dislike Schumer and Feinstein for their views, but I at least respect their candor. At least we could have an honest disagreement. There is an old saying, "Don't **** on my shoes and tell me its raining". I'm waiting for votes, not rhetoric.
Again, thank you for contacting me on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I continue to be disappointed in you, but will try to add my small voice to the chorus of the ignored and disenfranchised constituents you continue to "represent" here in Indiana. Regretfully, (simonov jr), IN
P.S. - I will keep an open mind and an open EYE on your votes before November. I promise I'll vote for you and urge others to do so if you start to protect my rights on the Hill. I also promise I will vote for a chimpanzee that runs against you, even a liberal one, if you do not stop selling us out up there. Do I still sound "confused"?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye
were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the
Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.
Senator_Lugar@lugar.senate.gov writes:
<< Dear Mr. (simonov):
Thank you for recently contacting me regarding my votes on the
Juvenile Justice bill. I appreciate the time you took to share your
thoughts with me and this opportunity to respond.
Considering how I blasted you in my correspondence, I'm actually kind of impressed that you responded. Either you or one of your staffers gets a little credit for not giving up on a voter...
Recently reported data shows that during the 1997-98 school year,
3930 children who carried firearms into schools were expelled under
the requirements of the Gun Free Schools Act, which Congress has
passed. Last school year--the deadliest year ever in our nation's
classrooms--Indiana educators confiscated 522 weapons from students
according to a study by the Indianapolis Star. I am very concerned
that violence in some schools is preventing children from focusing on
learning and achieving the best education that they can.
Obviously those kids would have been expelled anyway without Federal involvement. Isn't that like taking credit for all the fires put out because you outlawed them? That would have been done anyway. As for last year being the deadliest in our nations classrooms "ever", what is your source for this assertion? My understanding is that youth violence with firearms is at a 20-year low. Have you checked DOJ statistics? Still, how is preventing teachers and principals (who are law-abiding and have actually stopped shootings in the past) from legally carrying in schools going to prevent kids from focusing? Aren't you making these schools havens for these rampages, as you assure a steady pool of defenseless victims? Why are shootings always in these "Gun-free" areas, ie Post Offices, schools, Day Care, etc? Conversely, since you seem to think the presence of guns causes violence, why are there never shootings at the dreaded Gun Show? Trap shoot? Skeet range?
As you noted, I voted for Sense of the Senate amendments supporting
reform of our firearms laws and enforcement. These amendments
supported legislative movement on the Juvenile Justice bill that the
Senate passed last year with my support by a vote of 73-25. While
certain advocacy groups and the media have portrayed the Juvenile
Crime bill as being solely about gun control, most of the bill focuses
on other measures designed to reduce crime. For example, a measure
that I authored: the Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment program
(JSAT), which provides funding for community corrections-based drug
treatment. This kind of treatment has been shown in studies to
dramatically drive down drug and crime recidivism. The Juvenile Crime
bill also contains funding for innovative local and state-based
programs to prevent crime and to encourage diligent enforcement of our
laws.
Okay, what about the provisions that affect me, who is NEITHER a "Juvenile" or involved in the "Justice" system? Perhaps you can explain what my wife and I have to do with causing this "problem"?
In your correspondence to me, you indicated concern that I have
supported both Sense of the Senate amendments and that this represents
a change from my position on Second Amendment rights. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Since my days as mayor of Indianapolis
during the turbulent late 1960's and early 1970's, I have held the
belief that you can have legislation that keeps felons from having
guns and keeps law enforcement officers from being outgunned without
sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens to
possess, buy, sell, or use firearms.
Interesting use of words. You say you want to prevent felons from having guns. So does NRA, so do we all. NICS accomplishes that. Yet when referring to "law enforcement officers being outgunned", you don't seem to be referring to "felons" anymore. You seem to be referring to "sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens". So it seems you are concerned that I and other law-abiding citizens will "outgun" law-enforcement officers? If I am law-abiding, why should you or law enforcement have anything to fear from me? Furthermore, since the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting but rather the prevention of government-tyranny, isn't the citizenry SUPPOSED to have law enforcement officers "outgunned"? Apparently you will "go to the mat" for my right to own a .22 bolt action rifle, perhaps a Daisy Air Rifle. This is why I think you either have no grasp of the real meaning of the intent of the Bill of Rights, OR...I'm afraid you have embraced the Clinton-Gore philosophy of "selective memory". I think we both know what I'm talking about here.
Previously, I voted for the Reed
Sense of the Senate because I agree with its language stating that the
Juvenile Crime bill should be considered in conference with the
purpose of "limiting access to firearms by juveniles, convicted
felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing or
possessing firearms." Also previously, I did not support a Boxer
Sense of the Senate on gun control because I believed it to be
redundant to a Coverdell amendment that was accepted by a vote of 96-1
noting the lack of prosecution of gun crimes by the current
Administration.
So you had cover. Why won't you vote with us, the law abiding voters you often cite in your letters, when it COUNTS? When something is really on the line? Have you gotten so attached to your comfortable seat in Washington that you have forgotten why you went in the first place?
The Lott and Daschle Sense of the Senate amendments were not
either-or propositions. They advocate movement on the Juvenile
Justice bill which I support, and they encourage a comprehensive
approach to the enforcement of firearms offenses which is the key to
reducing gun violence by criminals. Both passed with support from
Republicans and Democrats.
During consideration of juvenile justice and education issues, some
have suggested that any legislation involving firearms must be
rejected outright without consideration of whether it has the
potential to reduce violence in schools or reduce criminals access to
firearms. I believe the American people as individuals have a right
to bear arms, and I would not support a movement to remove that right.
Please define "a movement to remove that right". You know as well as I that many of those you are voting with, such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Boxer are part of such a movement. They will TELL you so, if you don't already know. Since your record is in no way stopping the incremental, salami-slicing away of our right to bear arms, what are you trying to say? Sir, to put it more succinctly, why do YOU think the founding fathers didn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be REMOVED"? Precisely because they foresaw that slick political types would use that language to INFRINGE that right over time. Why don't you follow the OATH you took not to infringe that right?
There is a consensus in our society, however, that convicted criminals
should be stopped from buying guns. Some advocacy groups seem to
confuse the issue of stopping criminals from having guns and the
Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to possess, purchase,
sell, or use firearms in a lawful manner.
Okay, what do high-capacity magazines bought by law-abiding citizens have to do with it? Is that confusing the issue? The police seem to "need" them, but not the rest of us. Does the NRA seem confused to you? They INITIATED the instant check before most people ever got on the bandwagon. They INITIATED the Project Exile concept for Richmond. What have certain OTHER advocacy groups done other than go after the innocent and law-abiding? Are they confused too?
Our goals should be that any law abiding citizen of age should be
able to buy a gun under prevailing state law with as little
inconvenience as possible. And any criminal who attempts to buy a gun
illegally should be detected, arrested, and prosecuted.
No problem there. NICS already does this. Yet YOU (not a Democrat, YOU) voted to commend the Million Mom March, which if it had one message, is that me and my family should be registered for owning guns. Registered like a criminal. Do you perhaps see why I might have a problem with that Sir?
I don't believe these goals should be seen as mutually exclusive.
As a society that both suffers from extraordinary rates of gun
violence but also has a long-standing and Constitutionally-guaranteed
right to bear arms, we should be willing to devote the requisite
resources and energy to achieving both goals.
I honestly can't tell what you REALLY believe. I wish your rhetoric was the truth, I honestly do. I don't even know if this is your writing or not, but I am mainly interested in what you do with the VOTE we the people entrust you with. I don't know who is influencing you. Maybe you have been in Washington too long. Maybe you think that Lee Atwater was right, and gun owners have nowhere else to go. I can assure you we do. What is so damn hard about just admitting that you don't see the 2nd amendment as a right at all, but rather as a priveledge that you and your piers can dice at your political discretion? I dislike Schumer and Feinstein for their views, but I at least respect their candor. At least we could have an honest disagreement. There is an old saying, "Don't **** on my shoes and tell me its raining". I'm waiting for votes, not rhetoric.
Again, thank you for contacting me on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I continue to be disappointed in you, but will try to add my small voice to the chorus of the ignored and disenfranchised constituents you continue to "represent" here in Indiana. Regretfully, (simonov jr), IN
P.S. - I will keep an open mind and an open EYE on your votes before November. I promise I'll vote for you and urge others to do so if you start to protect my rights on the Hill. I also promise I will vote for a chimpanzee that runs against you, even a liberal one, if you do not stop selling us out up there. Do I still sound "confused"?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye
were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the
Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.