White House response to my letter on 2nd Amendment

Mark W

Well-known member
lh087274.gif
Even if all they do saves ONE life, everything is worth it according to this note. I'm not a big guy on debating abortion and what is right and wrong, but isn't that one life equally as important?

From: The White House <no-reply@correspondence.whitehouse.gov>
Date: April 8, 2013, 2:41:49 PM CDT
To: drwollner@comcast.net
Subject: Response to Your Message

USEOPWH_img_president_small.jpg

Dear Mark:​


Thank you for taking the time to write. I have heard from many Americans regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective. From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family. I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.

Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation. Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage. Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence—whether in high-profile tragedies or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities—we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one. Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown. We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence—if even one life can be saved—then we have an obligation to try.

That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas. I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.

My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence. These tools include strengthening the background check system, helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence. And I directed the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence—because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.

As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress. To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act. As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away. First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban. We should get tougher on those who buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this.

These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people. But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love. We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best effort—to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.

Thank you, again, for writing. I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime to learn more about my Administration’s approach.

Sincerely,​
Barack Obama​
 
Last edited:
Fishwrap. Hogwash. Out and out, total unadulterated bulls... uh..."fertilizer".

Politicians using the word "commonsense" make me sweat...they invoke an attribute they so often seem to lack. And wrapping it in a package of the recent events at Newtown while saying, "the safety of our children shouldn't be divisive"...makes me appalled. Does anyone honestly believe that simply passing MORE laws will keep something like Newtown from ever happening again? It was already against the law...Adam Lanza wasn't a gun owner...he killed his own mother to steal the guns she legally owned and use them to commit such an atrocity.

Trying to denigrate my rights as an American citizen by saying that the majority agrees on the Second Amendment, and that we have a long heritage of hunting and sport shooting is misdirection and disingenuous.

Rather than coming up with "his plan", perhaps the President should have remembered his promise to stick to one term only if he couldn't turn our country around in three years. Or perhaps We (the People) should reflect on such things and then give thought to "his plan" and what might result.
 
What a joke

All these new laws only hurt law abiding gun owners.

You mean the criminals wont turn in their guns & high capacity magazines and subject themselves to background checks????????? Ah come on, you really dont think? Where is your faith in the scum of our society?

(insert smiley face and/or other indicator that the above was complete smart-ass sarcasm.)
 
Seems to me that a common sense approach to saving "just one life" would involve encouraging willing people to recieve training and arm themselves in order to protect themselves and others in case of the unthinkable.
The "just one life" equation would seem to balance the elimation of millions of existing firearms with the presence of one brave person to counter the evil.
Which seems more likely?

From all accounts there were plenty of brave people at sandy hook, all they lacked were the tools.
 
...."It was already against the law...Adam Lanza wasn't a gun owner...he killed his own mother to steal the guns she legally owned and use them to commit such an atrocity."......

Rick, that is probably the best statement i have read concerning all this gun control stuff the past few months.
 

This "study" was done by 3 of Bloombergs handpicked minions. No spin in this convoluted piece of nonsense,eh? This is the real world ,FBI stats http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 , Compare this to the " America under the gun" spin. Did you notice Illinois is one of the
"good" states. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-grim-milestone-500-murders-2012-article-1.1229420 Now,if you're interested in some facts from the FBI this is worth watching.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Since " assault weapon " is the media term for a semi-auto rifle.,check on the FBI table 20 link and see how many rifles,of any type, are used in murder,compared to knives,hammers,clubs,ect.,hands and feet.
I tend to believe the FBI over some bs study financed by a rich,gun hater,with an agenda. We need to exercise a little logic,don'tcha think.
 
I don't want to start a Sh!t storm here but I agree with Ronald Reagan...




and for those that complain about making it hard for the law abiding citizen etc. etc. he said...



I own guns, I hunt, and I have no problem waiting to get a new gun. I will say it, it is just common sense. That is my opinion.
 
I don't want to start a Sh!t storm here but I agree with Ronald Reagan...




and for those that complain about making it hard for the law abiding citizen etc. etc. he said...



I own guns, I hunt, and I have no problem waiting to get a new gun. I will say it, it is just common sense. That is my opinion.

As President Reagan stated AK-47's and machine guns are not legitimate firearms for the public to own. I do hope that when you said you agree with President Reagan that you were referring to fully automatic weapons and not semi-automatic weapons such as an AR-15 which are legitimate rifles using for varmit hunting, firearms competitions, home defense and sport shooting.
 
Ak47 and Sks's are semi autos. There are laws already in place for machine guns. Paperwork is already there when you buy a gun. So what are they really doing?
 
It says they want to crack down on those that would sell guns to criminals.Maybe he should start with Eric Holder who gave guns to criminals and were used to kill our border agents.Progressives don't hate all guns, they only hate the guns in the hands of people who dissagree with them.They have used them to kill people all over the world.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

I couldn't get this link to show up correctly in my earlier post. The truth is a philosophical concept subject
to individual perception.The facts are simple reality. Watch this video and get some facts ,not some
liberal bs spin. " The devil kneads the truth to bake his bread"
 
Last edited:
I don't want to start a Sh!t storm here but I agree with Ronald Reagan...


I own guns, I hunt, and I have no problem waiting to get a new gun. I will say it, it is just common sense. That is my opinion.

Dave,

I agree with you on many accounts...

I agree you are starting a shit storm (and that is fine)

I agree citizens do not need "machine gun" type weapons...including semi autos

I agree I too have no problem with a waiting period...

I was once a resident of Illinois, at 14 or 15 I had my own FOID card, I couldn't purchase guns because of my age, but I needed it to hunt alone (otherwise I had to be in the company of a card carrying adult). At least at that time, the wait to have your FOID issued was your waiting period. Once you had a card, you were free to purchase. As a law abiding citizen, gun owner, what is the big fear of having a card? If you think it makes it easier for the government to find the guns and take your guns, here is a news flash...they already know you have them!

Just my 2 cents

Chuck
PS keep it clean
 
The second amendment doesn't really have anything to do with hunting or sporting per se. As big a fan of Reagan as I am, I wholeheartedly disagree with him on that point. "Need" is not the criteria. An armed citizen is ultimately not armed to protect themselves against their whack job neighbor, rather to protect themselves against the government. I have discussed this with my senator (Landrieu, D-LA).

Is it not odd that our federal govt has a logic disconnect? In the name of "protecting themselves" against, say uh, North Korea, they have amassed a spectrum from handguns to nuclear weapons? Why? To keep from being killed? NO!!! To keep the peace through strength.

Unarmed citizens are mere serfs, slaves, etc.

Understanding that the logical conclusion of this thinking is a nuclear armed citizen and I don't know how to answer that other than to say that our form of government is "by the people."
 
Little by little our rights guaranteed byu the Constitution are being taken away. I own 3 guns, 2 shotguns and a Ruger 10/22. What is being proposed does not personally affect me at all. However, the Constuitution which this country was built upon is the Constitution. I will keep saying this for as long as I live - the 2nd amendment is the only one that says "shall not be infringed". Period. Words have meanings. Look up infringed.

Also, why do you think it is the 2nd amendment (first one after Free Speech) and not the 10th amendment?.

Do not let these small "common sense" and "reasonable" solutions fool you. The agenda is much bigger. Start small and inocuous and go from there.

Get involved and get involved now.

Mark W
 
Last edited:
Back
Top