View Single Post
Old April 22, 2013, 05:30 PM   #86
Metal god
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
I got another one from Feinstein

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.

Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
I then wrote her back and used one of her quotes

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited
I stated that she was correct in this statement . I believe that when the SCOTUS used the wording ( not unlimited ) they were confirming that we could not own tanks , fighter jets , rockets , C4 , full auto small arms etc etc . It did not mean that she could keep taking and taking . I also wrote in my letter that I believed the SCOTUS had to put the ( not unlimited ) wording in there decision or it would have reversed all gun restrictions that were law to date and it was not an invitation to add more gun laws on to the books

Last edited by Metal god; April 22, 2013 at 08:15 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Page generated in 0.03439 seconds with 7 queries