Dear Mr. *****:

I am writing in response to your communication regarding the recent school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. As a father and grandfather with many educators in my family, this tragedy touched me deeply. We are all keeping the Newtown families in our thoughts and prayers.

I believe strongly in the right to bear arms. But, like all constitutional rights, this isn't absolute. I do not believe that private citizens should be able to purchase weapons of war that can out-shoot our police officers and kill dozens of people within seconds, as recent tragedies have proven. The Newtown shooter, the Columbine killers and the gunman in Aurora all used assault weapons designed for our troops on the frontlines. The gunmen in Tucson, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and Newtown were all armed with high-capacity magazines. In fact, the Newtown shooter was armed with enough ammunition to kill every student in the school.

As Congress renews its examination of our country's gun laws in the days ahead, I will continue to strive for legislation that strikes a fair and reasonable balance between the right to bear arms and making ultra-powerful weapons readily available to citizens intent on harming others. I will also fight for a more comprehensive solution that includes efforts to better identify and treat the mentally ill.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if you have any questions or comments. To receive additional information about issues that are facing Congress, Maryland, and the Nation that may affect you and your community, please visit my Web site at www.dutch.house.gov and sign up for my periodic e-mail newsletter.

Sincerely,

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger Member of Congress

And my response...


Congressman Ruppersberger,

Thank you for your reply.

First, I will acknowledge that the taking of any life is tragic regardless of the manor. My mother-in-law's brother was brutally beaten to death in south Baltimore. The murderer knocked him down and repeatedly smashed his head into a curb, crushing his skull in until he was not recognizable. And by the way, the murderer was a career criminal who was out on parole.

If you truly want to help make our society safer, I urge you to help change our revolving door prison system. In addition, please push the U.S. Attorney to enforce current laws, such as prosecution of convicted criminals found in possession of a firearm, please refer to 18 USC § 922 (g) & (n). I would venture a guess that if this one law was enforced and violent criminals were removed from society that crime INCLUDING gun crime would drop. Use or possession of firearm in relation to or furtherance of a drug felony or other federal crime of violence, 18 USC § 924 (c). Knowingly transfer firearm to prohibited person, please refer to 18 USC § 922 (d), which the DOJ/ATF violated over 1500 times during Operation Fast and Furious. How can law abiding citizens trust the government's stance on crime when it willingly provided guns to criminals and it was covered up?!?!

Evil people will do evil things regardless if the method. Tim McVeigh used a truck bomb to murder 168 people and injure over 800 more and without a firearm.

Now, in response to your email.

Based on your reply, you have made multiple statements that lead to question your credibility regarding supporting the Second Amendment and firearms knowledge. One of two conclusions can be drawn from this. First is that you are not familiar with firearms but try to portray that you do. Second possible conclusion is that you truly are not a supporter of the Second Amendment and therefore are using this tragedy as a simple political ploy to push antigun gun agenda under the guise of public safety.

You said, "all used assault weapons designed for our troops on the frontlines.." This is a flat out incorrect statement. First of all, assault rifles are capable of select fire, meaning semi-automatic or fully automatic. (Our troops are issued these rifles.) The evil people that committed the heinous shootings used semi-automatic rifles only rifles. Under the first conclusion, you are not familiar with firearms and are only regurgitating bad information of mislabeled firearm types. If you are just using incorrect vernacular from lack of knowledge regarding firearms, you are not qualified to act on ANY further gun control legislation. Under the second possible conclusion, you are purposely using wrong terminology in fear mongering for your own political agenda. In this case, you are not qualified to act on ANY legislation due to a conflict of the oath (to protect our Constitution) you swore to and your personal agenda to further your career.

You said, "I believe strongly in the right to bear arms. But, like all constitutional rights, this isn't absolute." Most of the time when this is brought up, it is referring to our right to free speech, but yet we are not permitted to yell, "FIRE!" in a theater without an actual fire. True, but no one is gagged before entering the theater. Only violators are punished, not everyone.

Our justice system is set up to prosecute those who do not follow the laws. Criminals do not follow current laws and additional laws will not reduce crime.

If the first conclusion on your stance is accurate, I trust that you WILL work to enforce the CURRENT laws (some of which I have listed) AND will put 100% effort towards defeating ALL further restrictions to law abiding citizens.

On the other hand, if you do work towards any further restrictions to the Second Amendment, it will prove that you are not honorable or honest with yourself or your employer, your constituency.

Many antigun people think and try to convince others that banning an item will make crime magically disappear. I ask you, how well has the ban on heroin and cocaine worked in this country? If it worked at all, we would not have a drug problem bordering on epidemic status. The cities such as Chicago and New York, have some of the strictest gun control laws, yet have some of the highest crime rates. And under 18 USC § 922 (q)(2)(A), all schools are 'gun free zones," but yet that law has been repeatedly ignored by these evil people. In fact murder is against the law but sadly that law is widely ignored. If you honestly want to reduce crime, you must focus on the people committing the crimes, not the other 99% of the population. In an effort to reduce drunk driving, only people who drink and drive lose driving privileges, not everyone. Correct?

The founders of our Country and the framers of our great Constitution held the following beliefs: must limit government power and thereby protect the rights of the people; and to serve in an elected position was an honorable duty to Country and State, and when duty was fulfilled, return to own occupation since elected positions were not a career. Many of our Country's problems can be traced to the failure of the second principle which has a negative effect on the first principle.

Respectfully,

Dan *****

Don't let up on these bastards. Continue to point out they are lying retards only looking out for themselves.

Thanks Barnes!!

And this an open invite for everyone (except dguidry) to use any of that in your correspondence with legislators.

I'll post more.. like what I sent this assbreath in the first place.

Congressman .........,

I must remind you of your two primary jobs as a Congressman. You took an oath, swearing to "support and defend the Constitution," and if you are not going to abide by that, you need to resign. Your other primary job is to represent your constituents in congress.

Let me quote, for you, the unabridged 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You probably also know, but I will remind you, that when the 2nd Amendment was written, that all males over the age of 18 were considered to be members of the unorganized militia, and they were required to provide arms and ammunition for militia service. The National Guard did not come about until over 100 years later. The militia is the people, not the military or the National Guard.

So, we have established that the 2nd Amendment applies to all males of age, and through equal opportunities also applies to women. There is nothing there about "sporting purposes" or hunting. Nothing about "reasonable restrictions." Certainly nothing about "conforming to global norms." Keeping and bearing arms is not a privilege. What it says, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shallnotbeinfringed."

As your constituent, I want you to uphold your oath to defend the Constitution, including the 2nd and 4th Amendments. The 4th Amendment? Yes, the 4th also. The 2013 Feinstein "assault weapon" bill requires that "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines be transferred to the government upon the death of the owner, and can not be transferred to family or anyone else. The 4th Amendment protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure.

No more gun bans. None. Don't compromise back to the terms of the 1994 ban, or something else. We have thousands of gun laws already, they just aren't prosecuted, and criminals break laws, by definition.

The 1994 Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban did not stop mass shootings. The Columbine shootings, and the North Hollywood bank shootout both happened while the Clinton ban was in effect. Connecticutalready has an "assault weapon" ban - a lot of good that did at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I want you to fight against further restrictions of the right of law-abiding Americans, and I am really serious about it. Guns do not cause crime any morethan chairs, coffeecups, orthe leaves on trees.