Second Reply from Fla Sen. Nelson

G

gilfo

New member
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Thank you for response. While I agree that the tragedy in Newtown was horrendous I do not think a ban would resolve the issues leading up to and including this tragedy. Therefore I regret to inform you that I will NOT be voting for you in your next re-election bid as I have done in the past. It is clear to me that you are not in step with what the Second Amendment was intended to be. I will work tirelessly to do whatever I can to make sure you are not re-elected for another term when the time comes. You are not a friend of the Constitution therefore not a friend to me.
Sincerely



Got this as a reply from Nelson. Could somebody help me with what is trying to say. I don't know if he means that we should not have military type weapons or not.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this reply.


Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

Sincerely,
Bill Nelson
 
Typical dodge on the issues. I'm a hunter is the defensive mantra. So assault rifle and mag bans are ok?

Yes, you can defend your house with a six shot revolver and a double barreled shotgun pretty well from the modal burglar.

There's more to it and his answer allows the bans of the evil guns.
 
Sounds to me like he did not put much thought into that reply.

Made little to no sense and what the heck does "traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home." mean?
 
Dear {Wyoredman}:

I believe we need to keep guns out of the hands of bad people, but there has to be that balance between protecting our citizens and our constitutional rights. We must define the problem before we propose an answer. People owning guns and shooting guns is not the problem. The problem is violence and its cause. We need to continue to seek solutions, but we shouldn’t let fear drive us down the road of giving up more and more of our most important and basic freedoms.

While President Obama cannot pass a bill without Congress, I have serious concerns about the executive orders issued and will continue to address this Administration’s disregard for the principles upon which our government was founded. If the President is serious about addressing gun violence his suggested actions need to be drafted into legislative language, considered in committee and debated on the floor with amendments. This is a matter that concerns Constitutional rights so I’m concerned about proposals which could circumvent the legislative process.

I have one of the best voting records protecting our Second Amendment rights. I believe we need to find out which of the current gun laws are working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and then make sure that those laws are enforced. While specific legislation has not been introduced, I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind.

Sincerely,


Michael B. Enzi

United States Senator
___________________________________

This is the reply I received from one of my Senators today. I hope most other Senators have a like mind, but I feel that may not be the case.
 
It's quite possible no one read your email, and this is a standard response.

Or someone may have skimmed your email and determined it was either pro or anti ban and sent one of two pre-drafted responses.

At most, they are keeping score.
 
gilfo said:
1. Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

2. I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms.

3. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

4. I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.
Click to expand...

1. Oh great, another 2A fanatic I have to respond to. (BTW, this is a staffer, not "me".)

2. I remember my roots, and I touch guns sometimes. Also, I've read the Bill of Rights at least once, enough to parrot it.

3. I can't be honest about what I want to do because the Supreme Court has said that I'm wrong.

4. Messages from people like you let me pretend to be paying attention to my constituents, but really, unless you donate to my campaign, I don't care what you think.
 
My reply to his reply

Dear Sen. Nelson,

I received your reply to my question on your stance on the gun control/weapons ban. After reading your reply I am still unsure what your stance really is. The poll you conducted on your website is overwhelming opposed to a ban of any kind.
Yes (9151 votes)
11.39%

No (71064 votes)
88.42%

No Opinion (152 votes)
0.19%

Please clarify for me are you going to vote with your constitutes wishes or not.

Sincerely
Donald Gilfillan
 
Spell check is a dangerous master. Spelling assistants are even worse.

While "constitutes" is a word and is spelled right, you probably meant to use use "constituents".

The anti-gun, self proclaimed elite looks at us as bunch of crazy, undeducated morons. Let's proof read our writing before hitting the send button.

No personal offense intended here. I screw spelling and grammar up all the time. I just try harder when writing to politicians and such.
 
Xfire68 said:
Made little to no sense and what the heck does "traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home." mean?
Click to expand...
The antis have adopted the view that the Heller and McDonald decisions ONLY affirmed a right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, that the RKBA does not extend beyond the front door "because the Supreme Court said so."

This is another one where, if the lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as truth. That's what they are telling the fence-sitters out there, and if we don't refute the lie each and every time it is uttered, the vast numbers of the undecided will very soon accept that view as the truth, and we'll have a VERY difficult time then changing their opinion.
 
Sounds to me like he did not put much thought into that reply
Click to expand...

He or his office never do put an effort into a response. Replies I have received from him are of the generic type and as stated dancing around the answer as most politicians will do. He truly needed to go and a shame Connie Mack lost to him.
He"s no friend to Florida gun owners no matter what he spews out about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top