You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sen. Boxer Gun Poll
- Thread starter Leadfoot
- Start date
The specialist
New member
DONE!!!!
I did vote, and I emailed her through the website... You can find the post from me related to what I wrote here...
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=36110
I received this response, and my reply is included.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Dear Senator Boxer...
I will assume that you answered this personally, and not some staffer, or auto-responder. If thatis the case, I thank you for taking the time from your
extremely busy schedule.
The "so-called Brady Bill" as you put it, and the "three strikes" legislation are worthy peices of legislation, but the 1994 Crime Bill (a.k.a Brady Bill) was not instrumental in controlling crime. It targeted specific types, and models of firearms based on features, and appearance. I was opposed to this legislation,
because it has little hopes of addressing the issue of Criminals & Guns.
Criminals, habitual felons, or anyone with the desire and means to wreak havoc will still aquire whatever they deem appropriate to the task, regardless of this legislation. This legislation is directed strictly at the law-Abiding citizen, who actually OBEY'S the law, not at people who have no regard for it.
Strong prosecution of these perpetrators will result in a decrease of crime, and the end result would be what you & I both wish to see, a safer community, and a safer country.
Whether I am allowed to purchase 1 gun, or 20 guns a month shouldn't make a difference under the law. The career criminal doesn't buy his guns through licensed dealers, and therefore is unaffected by this type of measure. I will agree there is an argument for "Straw Purchasers" who supply criminals with firearms. These people need to be aggressively prosecuted and convicted for their actions. I had never heard, officially, but I would imagine that the young lady who supplied the firearms for the Columbine tradgedy was never convicted for her role in the crime. She was even granted an all expense, paid vacation to Washington DC to testify that she was IGNORANT, and STUPID in exchange for PRISON TIME!
This sends a message to our public that it can be done, and then play "ignorance of the law" and still be held unaccountable. What a tragic precedent to set.
The 3 strikes law has it's merits as well, but we both know that there have been failings there as well. I won't argue this, as it is an attempt to do the right
thing, although sometimes with poor execution. Hopefully, the process will continue to refine itself, and the Violent offenders will be the ones impacted,
rather than the non-violent offenders, and misguided who used poor judgement.
Again, I strong urge that you support legislation that will target the criminal, and the crime, rather than what you see as the tool they use to commit the crime. The real issue is not about guns in our society, it's about the lack of prosceution of those who illegally aquire and use firearms to threaten, injure and kill the law abding citizen. Practically each peice of legislation you support further erodes the ability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves with whatever means available to them.
An excellent program that you may or may not be familiar with is "Project Exile". Please take the time to investigate the program, and if you do support legislation that addresses the criminal, you should wholeheartedly support this program. I strongly urge you, and Senator Feinstien to consider this
program that has been extremely successfull in addressing crime.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
My full name
A registered voter.
====================================
senator@boxer.senate.gov wrote:
May 12, 2000
Mr. My full name
My Address
City, California 95xxx
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand the right of hunters and other law-abiding citizens to be able to own a gun, and I believe we can respect those rights while curbing the incidence of gun violence. I was thus a strong proponent of both the so-called Brady Bill and the "three strikes" crime legislation.
Thank you again for writing to share your views. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.
=========================================
[/quote]
[This message has been edited by jaydee (edited May 12, 2000).]
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=36110
I received this response, and my reply is included.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Dear Senator Boxer...
I will assume that you answered this personally, and not some staffer, or auto-responder. If thatis the case, I thank you for taking the time from your
extremely busy schedule.
The "so-called Brady Bill" as you put it, and the "three strikes" legislation are worthy peices of legislation, but the 1994 Crime Bill (a.k.a Brady Bill) was not instrumental in controlling crime. It targeted specific types, and models of firearms based on features, and appearance. I was opposed to this legislation,
because it has little hopes of addressing the issue of Criminals & Guns.
Criminals, habitual felons, or anyone with the desire and means to wreak havoc will still aquire whatever they deem appropriate to the task, regardless of this legislation. This legislation is directed strictly at the law-Abiding citizen, who actually OBEY'S the law, not at people who have no regard for it.
Strong prosecution of these perpetrators will result in a decrease of crime, and the end result would be what you & I both wish to see, a safer community, and a safer country.
Whether I am allowed to purchase 1 gun, or 20 guns a month shouldn't make a difference under the law. The career criminal doesn't buy his guns through licensed dealers, and therefore is unaffected by this type of measure. I will agree there is an argument for "Straw Purchasers" who supply criminals with firearms. These people need to be aggressively prosecuted and convicted for their actions. I had never heard, officially, but I would imagine that the young lady who supplied the firearms for the Columbine tradgedy was never convicted for her role in the crime. She was even granted an all expense, paid vacation to Washington DC to testify that she was IGNORANT, and STUPID in exchange for PRISON TIME!
This sends a message to our public that it can be done, and then play "ignorance of the law" and still be held unaccountable. What a tragic precedent to set.
The 3 strikes law has it's merits as well, but we both know that there have been failings there as well. I won't argue this, as it is an attempt to do the right
thing, although sometimes with poor execution. Hopefully, the process will continue to refine itself, and the Violent offenders will be the ones impacted,
rather than the non-violent offenders, and misguided who used poor judgement.
Again, I strong urge that you support legislation that will target the criminal, and the crime, rather than what you see as the tool they use to commit the crime. The real issue is not about guns in our society, it's about the lack of prosceution of those who illegally aquire and use firearms to threaten, injure and kill the law abding citizen. Practically each peice of legislation you support further erodes the ability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves with whatever means available to them.
An excellent program that you may or may not be familiar with is "Project Exile". Please take the time to investigate the program, and if you do support legislation that addresses the criminal, you should wholeheartedly support this program. I strongly urge you, and Senator Feinstien to consider this
program that has been extremely successfull in addressing crime.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
My full name
A registered voter.
====================================
senator@boxer.senate.gov wrote:
May 12, 2000
Mr. My full name
My Address
City, California 95xxx
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand the right of hunters and other law-abiding citizens to be able to own a gun, and I believe we can respect those rights while curbing the incidence of gun violence. I was thus a strong proponent of both the so-called Brady Bill and the "three strikes" crime legislation.
Thank you again for writing to share your views. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.
=========================================
[/quote]
[This message has been edited by jaydee (edited May 12, 2000).]
Mike in VA
New member
I voted and sent her a copy of teh ópen letter' I posted elsewhere. I also reminded her that my wife & I own property and pay taxes in CA, we'll se if she answers.
M2
M2
DONE, also sent this e-mail:
All this talk about reducing violence by restricting implements is simply
ridiculous. To also attempt to catagorize violence by what a criminal uses
is specious. Why do we not hear you and others talking about car violence
or knife violence? To also hear you and others cry for safety, I have as yet
to see any public service anouncements of the Eddie Eagle safety program
designed for children k-6 whose ONLY message is "stop, don't touch, leave
the area, and tell an adult", this should be aired through the morining cartoons
and other childrens programs. The fact that it is not is compelling
evidence that you and others are not truly concerned for the safety of
children and are really concerned about being in control of every aspect of
a persons life. If you and others were truly concerned about safety, there
would be public service anouncements done by certified NRA instructors
to inform the public of the proper safe handling of firearms, but the fact
that you and others do not push for this just demonstrates a total lack
of concern for safety. As a constituent I can honestly say that you have
continually MIS-represented me in the Senate and hope to see you voted
out in the near future.
All this talk about reducing violence by restricting implements is simply
ridiculous. To also attempt to catagorize violence by what a criminal uses
is specious. Why do we not hear you and others talking about car violence
or knife violence? To also hear you and others cry for safety, I have as yet
to see any public service anouncements of the Eddie Eagle safety program
designed for children k-6 whose ONLY message is "stop, don't touch, leave
the area, and tell an adult", this should be aired through the morining cartoons
and other childrens programs. The fact that it is not is compelling
evidence that you and others are not truly concerned for the safety of
children and are really concerned about being in control of every aspect of
a persons life. If you and others were truly concerned about safety, there
would be public service anouncements done by certified NRA instructors
to inform the public of the proper safe handling of firearms, but the fact
that you and others do not push for this just demonstrates a total lack
of concern for safety. As a constituent I can honestly say that you have
continually MIS-represented me in the Senate and hope to see you voted
out in the near future.