You are right. This isn't about sporting and hunting. But that's what the liberal leaders are trying to turn it into. In their opinion we should only be concerned about having guns that allow us to hunt or use for sport. That satisfies our 2nd Amendment. I sent a strong message in support of our 2A rights to both senators from Illinois and actually got a response from democratic Senator Dick Durbin. Read his response to my message, and of course I had to respond back to call out his errors in the message below his.
Sorry in advance for the length of this message!
On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:30 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
January 7, 2013
Mr. Gregory G.
Crystal Lake, IL 60012-2145
Dear Mr. G:
Thank you for your message about gun control. I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible fashion. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of any effort to reduce gun violence. I have consistently supported tough crime control and prevention initiatives since coming to Congress.
Enforcing our nation’s existing gun control laws must remain a high priority. I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban are supported by law enforcement officials who must patrol our streets. These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.
I will continue to support efforts that help ensure our nation’s gun laws are vigorously enforced. Thank you once again for contacting me.
Please feel free to stay in touch.
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
Dear Senator Durbin,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond personally to my email regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. However I feel compelled to respond to your letter as I believe your interpretation has strayed from the verbiage and true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere in the text does it state "owning guns in a responsible fashion". That becomes your interpretation of what "responsible" is. While I want only responsible people to own arms, focus should be placed on ensuring mentally unstable people don't have access to weapons. I support the Brady Act in so much as completing background checks on potential firearm purchases.
You also appear to support the "Assault Weapons Ban" as being "common sense restrictions", however once again this becomes your interpretation of what an assault weapon is. This is too restrictive and is not the problem causing gun violence.
And finally, you reference laws that "help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms". With all due respect, this is very concerning as you are putting words into the constitution that do not exist. The 2nd Amendment does not speak of the right to have weapons for hunting and sporting uses, it speaks to "being necessary to the security of a free State," and that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I think it is important to point out that violence is not growing due to legitimate gun owners that are legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, including those that own semi-automatic weapons. Violence is committed by people who don't care about laws, and will continue to commit their crimes regardless of any weapons ban.
Senator Durbin, I implore you to reconsider your position on this matter and do not add your beliefs and will to the constitution, but instead place more energy behind being tough on crime and violence. Guns don't create violence, bad people do. Knives, hammers, swords, baseball bats, etc. don't create violence, bad people do. Focus your attention on controlling and/or punishing bad people.