Response from senator casey

[tsor39]

As we all know Senator Flip-Flop has indicated that he is for an AWB. I sent a mail to him reminding him of his oath to protect the Constitution and short of this advising that the Citizens of the Commonwealth want his immediate resignation. We folks, how about a load for your amusement.

Dear Mr. tsor39:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the United States Constitution. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

When I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator, I took an oath pledging to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I can assure you that every time I face a vote on the Senate floor or in a Committee, I work closely with my colleagues and my staff to study the proposed legislation and determine whether it is consistent with the Constitution before I consider giving it my support. I strongly believe the strength of our democracy today is a testament to the enduring relevance of the Constitution and the wisdom of our founding fathers.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. As your Senator, I highly value hearing what Pennsylvanians think about the actions of Congress, as well as my own performance here in Washington. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

[FMJT]

Idiot. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[slinkwc2k]

I got the same response. So this was my response back...I'm not laying down anymore!


Senator Casey,

I am deeply saddened by your decision to support any type of federal firearms ban. Currently proposed legislation would instantly create millions of criminals in the United States if passed; is that something you as a senator really want to be associated with? Think about it: criminals do not follow rule of law, they avoid paying taxes, and certainly do not vote. Millions of people like myself, never having broke the law and never have done anything wrong, instantly become felons: the thanks our government gives us for being such good citizens. How do you think that will influence people's actions in their daily lives, once they are labeled as criminals by the government? Do you not think their behavior would be reflected by their newfound "label"? Millions of new (and angry, non-law abiding, non-tax paying, non-voting) criminals running around would be terrible. By your vote you would have helped foster this...I strongly urge you to reconsider.

I cannot agree more, that senseless violence as of late is truely dreadful. I wish it would stop altogether; I hate it! But no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how much legislation is proposed, people's free will is just something that cannot be constrained. Evil does exist in this world; it always has, and no amount of laws or legislation can change that. Look at Chicago, a place that has some of the strictest firearms laws in the United States. Yet, two highly publicized senseless shootings occurred there just recently. How can that happen with all the laws in place? The answer is because evil exists in this world. It is people's intention with a firearm that really matters. Yes, there's evil in this world, but there are also good people. A good person can defend their family with the same firearm that another person can use for evil. So placing a ban on firearms really is not a viable answer. In fact, it will hinder those who are good and just make more wicked the evil. If a strict ban on firearms and magazines were the answer, then I wouldn't have been able to use Chicago as my example. Please think about that. I urge you to reconsider.

Yet you remain steadfast to ban certain types of firearms and magazines that can hold X amount of rounds of ammunition in it. I have tried to see and understand your point of view. But much to your chagrin, I cannot. Your proponents say things like "how many rounds do you need to kill a deer" and the like. For one, it's not about hunting; it never has been. Its about protecting one's self. If I have a firearm that holds X rounds of ammunition, it is not so that I can shoot a deer more times. It is so that I can manipulate the gun LESS. It comes down to efficiency; in a time-is-life scenario, the more time I can save by manipulating the gun less, the better my chances are that I come out alive in a critical incident scenario. Let's say I were restricted to just 1 round in a firearm, (back to muzzleloading days) and I needed to stop multiple attackers who illegally broke into my house and threatned my life and my family. What are the chances I'm not going to be able to defend against such an attack under those circumstances, before distance is closed and I am overrun and on the ground? Please try and understand what the second amendment is all about. The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed; that means any type of arm. You cannot logically say you are in support of the second amendment, yet wish to ban the instruments that allow it to exist and be upheld. Again, I urge you to reconsider any type of ban on firearms and/or firearm accessories.

Thank you

[tcpuma]

Your response is a lot more ploite than I would have been.