In other news, water is wet.

**bogey1** · March 14th, 2018, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Xringshooter

Reply to CHAD and ask him if the Senator FULLY comprehends the 2nd Amendment. Then see what the double speak is when he replies.

The email I just got from my uncles friend says its about hunting,
and a ar15 will turn a deer into hamburger.

**prsndoc** · March 14th, 2018, 04:25 PM

And unfortunately this manner of thinking is just too contagious these days.

**marinville** · March 14th, 2018, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by bogey1

The email I just got from my uncles friend says its about hunting,
and a ar15 will turn a deer into hamburger.

...and fell six oak trees.

**john9001** · March 15th, 2018, 12:14 AM

We need a new oath of office, it should go like this. "do you swear or affirm that you will only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?"

**alpacaheat** · March 19th, 2018, 09:54 AM

Response from Scott Perry, my rep.

Dear Mr. Alpacaheat:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your many concerns about gun control legislation in light of recent attacks in our Country.

I'm angered by and I grieve these incomprehensible tragedies, and I continue to pray for everyone impacted by these cowardly attacks; especially, the victims, their families and loved ones, and our tireless First Responders. Investigations are ongoing to uncover possible motive behind these attacks, and I'm monitoring them like we all are.

These acts of violence leave us with questions as to how we can better protect ourselves and the ones we love. When a tragic shooting occurs, the blame quickly turns to supporters of the 2nd Amendment and allegations that our present gun laws are too lenient. While violence in America, admittedly, is a problem, heavier gun control is not the answer.

The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right guaranteed to all American citizens. Like all rights afforded in our Constitution, we must be extremely cautious when deciding to limit or remove any of them, which should happen only after the completion of thorough due process; anything less sets a dangerous precedent in allowing the federal government to further encroach upon the rights and civil liberties of private citizens.

The Constitution doesn't specify what type of arms we can bear or how/when we may exercise our rights; the federal government also has no constitutional authority to limit/regulate these rights. To be clear, the terms "assault weapons" and "weapons of war" are political phrases designed to evoke an emotional response - they're not a defined class of firearms. Remember, criminals who fail to obey laws in the first place certainly don't/won't heed new laws. Attempting to stop acts of violence by banning firearms doesn't address the root cause of the violence.

While I remain focused on Constitutional freedoms, I remain open to thoughtful and meaningful solutions. For example, we need significant improvements to our mental health system, which may prevent those who perpetrate these senseless acts of violence, as well as innocent citizens from having to face the immeasurable loss and grief resulting from them.

Former President Obama resolved to "solve" the problem of gun violence through his Gun Control Executive Order, which neither solved the problem nor prevented future criminals from obtaining guns; it simply hindered law-abiding citizens' rights to own a firearm - which, frankly, was the implied purpose. At present, we have over 240 federal gun regulations in statute that aren't enforced. For example, A 2011 GAO study found that many states currently fail to share felony and mental health records with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The first step towards a solution is simple: we must enforce existing laws, which keep guns of out the hands of violent criminals.

Presently, several bills are up for consideration in Congress, including: H.R. 3999, which amends Title 18 to prohibit any gun parts that increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle; H.R.3947/ S.1916, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act; H.R. 4168, the Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act; among others. As the legislative process progresses, please know that I'll keep your positions in mind if/when gun legislation reform is brought before the full House for a vote.

We must strive to eliminate criminal use of guns while protecting citizens' right to defend themselves as they see fit. These are inherently very sensitive matters - regardless of viewpoint - because they're at the crossroad of liberty and security. Yes, I fully support the 2nd Amendment, but I'm also focused on ways to reduce gun violence, keep us safe and strengthen our mental health system; none are autonomous issues.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your concerns and encourage your continued feedback. I see that you had many topics of discussion and if my letter hasn't answered your questions sufficiently, I'm happy to speak with you either in a meeting in the District or by phone - whichever you prefer. Please visit our website at perry.house.gov to submit further questions/comments or to sign up for our e-newsletter, Facebook page, and/or Twitter updates.

Very Respectfully,

Scott Perry
Member of Congress
4th District, Pennsylvania

**Emptymag** · March 19th, 2018, 10:07 AM

^^^ I think he's just stringing you along, man.
Not one mention of hunting being a "strong tradition among Pennsylvanians".

Keep an eye on THAT guy.

**john9001** · March 19th, 2018, 10:18 AM

"eliminate criminal use of guns ", does that mean it's ok for criminals to use other means to commit crimes? To put it into simple terms that simple people can understand, the saw did not cut the board too short, it was the carpenter.

**ideaman** · March 19th, 2018, 10:23 AM

Write him back and write you said this:......"The senator believes that military grade weapons should not be available to the public. These weapons have been designed to quickly and efficiently kill mass amounts of humans, and are not needed for protection or hunting."

Then say. Why do the police have them? To "..kill mass amounts of humans...? Why does a 6 team swat team go into a house after 1 shooter
carrying AR's??? The police carry firearms for one reason only, SELF-DEFENSE. The very same reasons for we the people who is attacked FIRST by the attacker. The Constitution does not allow separate classes of people.

Any weapon you ban we the people, must also stand for the police.

**alpacaheat** · March 19th, 2018, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Emptymag

^^^ I think he's just stringing you along, man.
Not one mention of hunting being a "strong tradition among Pennsylvanians".

Keep an eye on THAT guy.

No actually, he's one of the strongest defenders of the 2A I've seen in our representation. I'm not worried about him. He gives concealed carry seminars in our district regularly and was the guy on Fox News who was saying Vegas was a terrorist attack all along.

That letter was wordier than usual though, but I contact him at least twice a week on gun bills.

**Emptymag** · March 19th, 2018, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by alpacaheat

No actually, he's one of the strongest defenders of the 2A I've seen in our representation. I'm not worried about him. He gives concealed carry seminars in our district regularly and was the guy on Fox News who was saying Vegas was a terrorist attack all along.

That letter was wordier than usual though, but I contact him at least twice a week on gun bills.

Well, yeah - that was sarcasm, ya' knucklehead.