Don’t Forget, TWEETSTORM tonight!

Let’s join together to get #NoToGunControl and #StopGunControl to trend on Twitter tonight. Original post here: http://pastebin.com/ZRJZ2Tqn

Irresponsible Journalism is More Dangerous than a Firearm

Dec 24, 2012: The Journal News publishes an article and interactive map that lists the addresses of ~44,000 legal gun owners in a few counties in NY. This was done to let others know about the “deadly weapon that might be next door”. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood?nclick_check=1

Jan 2, 2013: The Journal News decides to hire ARMED security guards for its staff after the immense outpouring of negative correspondence in response to the information release. Local law enforcement said the negative messages contained NO threats and that there had been no issues at the office. Apparently it’s OK for the Journal News to benefit from ARMED protection, but they attempt to ostracize the general public that wishes to have the same right. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/putnam-officials-keep-gun-permit-records-from-journal-news.html?_r=0

Jan 4, 2013: Officials in a few of the counties where the legal gun owners names and addresses were made public are now facing a new threat. Inmates were able to access this information and are now taunting guards with their home addresses. People that DIDN’T make the list now show up as gun-free homes on the map, and are buying their first guns in case their homes become targets. One individual bought her gun 20 years ago after her husband tried to strangle her. Now he has access to her new location thanks to the idiotic action of a newspaper. http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/rockland-westchester-officials-say-gun-permit-list-endangers-officers-1.4407323

For the Journal News, their words have caused a much more dangerous situation than any of the gun owners they were trying to hang out to dry.

Diana DeGette’s Magazine Capacity Legislation Letter

The following was adapted from reddit user arobbie1997 and is used with his/her permission:

Greetings, I am urging you not to support the magazine ban that Diana
DeGette will be introducing in the House later this month. It has been
proved by Harvard researchers that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,
especially the part concerning restriction of magazines over 10 rounds,
did NOTHING to deter crime within our nation. It also does not make it so
a mass shooter or murderer can kill fewer people, it only makes it
marginally slower, which does nothing when their victims are defenseless.
I am urging you to think about our constitutional rights as you do your
job to protect the oath of the constitution. Banning something under the
guise of public safety just to pass feel-good legislation is an extremely
dangerous line to cross.

I will actively campaign for and financially support the opponents of any
elected official that votes for ANY new gun or magazine restrictions or
compromises on ANY “assault weapon” ban.

Letter #4

This letter was written by reddit user brainybabe24 and is copied below with his/her permission:

Subject: Law-Abiding Citizens Are Majority, Not Criminals – Vote Against Gun Ban

Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it seems we now face renewed threats to our Constitutional rights.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and in that aspect and in the case of this bill, please do not forget I am in the MAJORITY. I implore you not to enact a bill that does not represent the majority of US citizens – the non-criminals, – violates our 2nd amendment rights, and places restrictions on our ability to protect ourselves from those in the minority who would commit crimes.

In this most recent situation, a mentally ill man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. The gun system in place actually did what it should. I cannot say the same for the mental health care system in our country and the complete lack of resources for the mentally challenged, as he then, in his twisted psychotic mind, decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms, thus going beyond ALL legal boundaries to commit this crime.

Mental illness is the major common denominator not being addressed in these mass assaults. The bill that is planned to be introduced would not have prevented this crime at all.

Gun bans will not prevent corrupt people, whether inherently evil or seriously mental ill, from doing bad things in the world. They will always find a way if determined enough. They will, however, prevent me from protecting myself when threatened.

If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1% of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies. This was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban.

Instead, please do something meaningful, which will have a more positive effect on the citizens of the US. Boost mental health resources in our country, which could also potentially reduce alcoholism and drug use amongst the mentally ill, homelessness, and the number of mentally ill in prisons for other crimes as well. Put armed security guards in our schools (“gun-free zones” are an advertised target for criminals). But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.

While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.

As your constituent, I urge you to support the majority and vote against this bill, an obvious infringement on our 2nd amendment rights, to keep my support.

Thank you.

Letter #3

This letter was written by reddit user xan1th and is copied below with his/her permission:

My name is <INSERT NAME HERE>, and I am writing you to encourage opposition towards any new gun control legislation that erodes our second amendment rights. Dianne Feinstein plans to submit a revised version of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) also known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This proposal, if enacted, will destroy thousands of American jobs in the firearms sector, waste government resources, and further expand government overreach into the lives of law abiding citizens.

It is my opinion that the Second Amendment protects our rights as citizens of the United States to legally own firearms for both recreational use and self defense. Further, this opinion is upheld and supported by the United States Supreme Court in examples such as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010). Our constitution is what sets the United States of America apart from the world, guaranteeing its citizens rights and privileges, guiding many of the laws and regulations created in this republic. I want to draw your attention specifically to the fact that this amendment is not written to protect the rights of hunters, but instead protects legal gun owners at large. I ask that you support our Second Amendment rights and oppose the restriction of our rights based on cosmetic features such as “thumbhole stocks,” folding stocks, bullet buttons, and other criteria set forth in Senator Feinstein’s “characteristic test.”

In a recent poll conducted by USA Today, 51% of respondents indicated opposition towards “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles.” This poll was conducted between December 19-22 and captures the American public response after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.

Studies conducted to review the effectiveness 1994 AWB show that results were largely negligible, with the number of gun related incidents fluctuating between the 1980s and today. Further, the firearms restricted in this proposed legislation compose a tiny fraction of crime related gun violence. President Obama acknowledges in his October 16 address that “there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.” In a report compiled by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2 of the top 5 guns used in crime were .380 ACP and .25 ACP, used in sub-$200 handguns. The list does not denote a single rifle. These types of small handguns are prolific in the US, and restricting them from law abiding citizens only empowers criminals.

I wish to advise specifically against any legislation which creates a “National Firearms Registry.” Senator Feinstein has suggested that any grandfathered guns in her newly proposed legislation be registered in accordance to the National Firearms Act of 1934. These firearm databases are dangerous and exist only against the spirit of the United States. Regularly, gun owners and concealed weapons license / permit holders are placed under added scrutiny with news outlets publishing lists of names and addresses. These publications only cause fear in the general populous and arm criminals with knowledge they would otherwise not have.

In conclusion, Senator Feinstein’s ban will destroy private sector American jobs, disenfranchise the voting public, and lead to the further distrust of the US Government by law abiding gun owners to effectively protect our rights in this nation. A vote for the proposed Assault Weapons Ban by any Senator or Representative will result in the rallying of myself and the millions of other gun owning citizens in this nation to support your opponents in future elections. I personally intend to devote vast amounts of my time and resources towards educating my fellow Americans on the destructive nature of this type of proposed legislation, and supporting candidates in our Congress which protect our rights.

I write you as a gun owning citizen, active voter, and registered Democrat in the great state of <INSERT STATE>. This issue, more than many others, will define how I cast all votes in the relative future. In the past I have donated in a bi-partisan fashion to both Republican and Democratic candidates, depending on the relevant issues at hand. I pledge my support to you provided you pledge your support not only to myself but also all of the other legal firearms owners of the United States.

Sincerely,

<INSERT NAME HERE>

<CITY, STATE>

<CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT – http://house.gov/htbin/findrep&gt;

Letter #2

The following was authored by reddit user brokenmindset and is copied below with his/her permission:

Hello,

I live in <MY STATE> and am writing you to encourage you to OPPOSE any gun legislation that would further erode our second amendment rights. Diane Feinstein is going to propose a reinstated Assault Weapons Ban that will destroy thousands of American jobs in the firearms sector, waste Government resources attempting to institute a National Firearm Registry, and bloat governments reach further into law abiding citizens lives.

Gun control has been proven in cities like Chicago to be ineffective and will only cause harm to legal gun owners. I would like to link you to this article that polled random people in America, including non gun owners, and determined that over %51 polled DID NOT support an Assault Weapons Ban.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-51-percent-dont-want-gun-ban-85512.html?ml=la

I would also like to remind you that in the wake of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, voters turned out in record numbers to vote out the Democratic majority that passed the law under President Clinton. I ask you to remember the voice of your constituents and see reason – an Assault Weapons Ban is NOT going to help our country and several studies have shown that the previous ban had ZERO affect on crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_on_crime

“In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.”

In conclusion, Feinstein’s ban will destroy private sector American jobs, disenfranchise the voting public and lead to a further distrust in our Governments ability to effectively run our nation. A vote for this Assault Weapons Ban will result in me personally rallying support for your opponent in any further election and devoting ALL of my time and resources towards a more constitutionally friendly candidate.

Call to District Representative

I made a call to my district Representative today. An intern (I presume) answered his phone, and the following conversation transpired. I’d encourage EVERYONE to call your reps, every day, to remind them that we will not stand for laws that make it easier for us to become victims that don’t provide any tangible benefit to society.

Intern: “Hi, thanks for calling <my rep>’s office, how can I help you?

Me: “Hi, my name is <my name> and I live in <my congressional district>…”

Intern: “Excellent! Thanks so much for calling, what can I do for you today?”

Me: “I’d like to encourage Rep <my rep> to not support any new gun restrictions or an assault weapons ban in the coming year”.

Intern: “Can I get your address?”

Me: <my info>

Intern: “Great, thanks again for calling, I’ll pass this note along to the congressman. Have a happy new year!”

The entire call took ~30seconds, and is probably the most effective means of letting our lawmakers know where we stand.

Letter #1

This letter was written by reddit user CastleSeven and is copied below with his permission:

As a proud citizen of the United States and the State of Kentucky, I want to voice my concern over what constitutes “meaningful action” in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre.

In the weeks ahead, as the effort to create policy intended to keep us safer is embarked upon, I implore you to also consider our past policies and the oft-overlooked consequences of laws which provide a false sense of security that subtly undermine the rights of the American people.

There has been speculation that a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would be entertained as an option of “meaningful action”. We cannot ignore the studies performed by the CDC[1], the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice[2], or the University of Pennsylvania[3] that were unable to prove the laws enacted over the 10-year period did anything to help curb gun violence. Some of these studies even suggest that a reimplementation would produce little to no measurable reduction in violent crime. To re-enact similar laws that have no meaningful benefit to society shows at best a disregard of empirical evidence and a tendency to implement knee-jerk legislation, and at worst a desire to dictate what your constituents do or do not “need”, regardless of concrete evidence that the item at hand is a clear and present danger to society.

As a nation, we must be absolute in our resolve to strictly define the circumstances under which our rights can be restricted. Our litmus test for the First Amendment was adopted by the US Supreme Court in 1969 and is known as “imminent lawless action”. This gives the State the ability to restrict an individual’s First Amendment rights if failing to do so would produce imminent lawless action.

The data that would support the notion that a new Assault Weapons Ban or further gun control measures would circumvent an “imminent lawless action” simply does not exist. In fact, data showing the opposite effect, that more restrictive gun control laws make it easier for law-abiding citizens to become victims of violent crimes, is available in abundance.

I respectfully request that you consider these points while investigating the appropriate response to the tragedy in Connecticut. My prayers are with you during this difficult time.

[1] - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[2] -https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

[3] -http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf