Representatives response today ??

[Djcala]

So I am an avid letter writer, emailer and phone caller of both state and federal politicians who I'm a constituent of, most know me from this as well as I often attend gatherings when possible, firm believer in civic engagement, retirement allows alot of aggravate the elected time. So I had written Rep. Tom Graves from our district in Ga. Here is response, I read as a typical non commit till I know what I have to gain or lose letter. I will be clarifying the position of Georgia Gun Owners for him,in follow up letter. Then again maybe im misconstrue his meaning ??

 

[John A.]

Typical canned response letter.

Doesn't sound anti2a, just makes me wonder how pro2a he is as well. Hal Rogers (R-KY) is the same way.

I've pestered for more direct responses as well, but until it moves to the floor for a vote, amendments can be added and essentially poison pilled in some instances and until it's read on the floor for a vote, I probably couldn't commit to vote or not for anything until the fat lady sings if I were in his shoes either because until that point, everything is hypothetical scenarios.

FWIW, I do not like the thought of universal background checks. I do not believe it would stop crime from happening because the only people this would negatively affect is otherwise law abiding citizens, and is a path for universal registration.

I would not support anything of the sort.

I used to didn't have a problem with criminal background checks and supported them. Until the government added a lot of veterans to the list despite not being convicted of a crime, that's when my opinion did a 180. The NICS check was abused in the highest manner.

Then I grew up some more and realized that criminals don't follow the law in the first place. The gov can make all the laws they want, but a criminal will never follow a law that he doesn't want to follow and making more laws isnt' going to change it. Including paying for a background check, which this law is also going to increase the cost of gun ownerships by default.

Another reason why I am not a fan of this. It negatively affects the poorest Americans, and they are just as important as the richest ones in my book.

 

[ripjack13]

It would great also if the amendments were not not allowed on the backs of bills. One bill. One vote. Thats it.

 

[Djcala]

Universal checks are hogwash intrusion on our personal lives and near complete registration period. I especially noted his first statement "bipartisan" as if to,say everyone wants this.......

 

[Water Monkey]

He's gonna vote for it.

This is step one. There's no way to enforce UBC.

So step 2 is a national registry.

Same way they are doing it with nationalizing health care.

Step 1 crash it with a crap law.

Step 2 take it over. You already have the "Medicare for all" chickens chirping.

 

[John A.]

Good thing that I have already given away my collection to who I want to have them. Most of them are just storing them at my house in the meantime and letting me borrow them every now and then

 

[meanstreak]

It would great also if the amendments were not not allowed on the backs of bills. One bill. One vote. Thats it.

That is the way it should be on every law passed. Then there would be none of this "well I did or did not vote for this because of this or that amendment". It would also cut down on the time they spend investigating crap all of the time. Everything is Washington is a game of gotcha for purely political posturing.

I wonder if these people really think criminals are going to start taking their recently out of a trunk in an alley purchase to an FFL ? Actually, they do know that, they don't care because they want to take the guns away from the populace, but it sounds good to the sheeple.

 

[John A.]

^ Yep.

I couldn't tell you how stupid the same old arguments (gun show loophole--which doesn't exist) and "Buying guns online" (which can only be mailed to a licensed FFL) is BS.

But if I had a dollar for every time I have read it or heard it on the radio or TV, I would be rich beyond compare because it seems that if they repeat it often enough, people catch on and start believing that it's true because they have heard it so much. And then they don't want to listen to anyone that actually corrects it.

It is nothing more than deceipt and psychological warfare.

Those believing it themselves really need to sit down and wonder why.

It's not to protect the populace because the supreme court has already ruled that the police or anyone else has an obligation to protect you. Government cannot specifically protect every US citizen whether on home soil or abroad either.

So, in the end, it only leads back to them having personal and political agendas. And you need to look through the history books to see what that means.

The politicians are drunk on power and will not relinquish it willingly. They get a lot of money from donors who support their views so they can get richer and also to remain in power.

If you or I started paying off democrat donors to uphold the constitution, I believe they could be bought off to do that too, but for the time being, they're making deals with the devil and selling their souls to do their bidding.

Sorry for the analogies, but I do feel that the same holds true.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Good thing that I have already given away my collection to who I want to have them. Most of them are just storing them at my house in the meantime and letting me borrow them every now and then

That makes them all felons, if it happens in California. You would only get hit with multiple counts of aiding and abetting.

But that's a west coast issue currently. Does even NY have this law? That you cannot Lend out your gun? Or store it at an unlicensed facility?

I think our current governor sponsored that law a couple years back.

 

[John A.]

Not where I live.