I received your message April 4, 2013 regarding a comment that I sent you a few weeks ago in regards to the 2nd Amendment and how I feel about the matter. However, the message I received seemed to be a template that others have received as well, but I feel that I have to respond to the template letter that was sent to me.
The 2nd Amendment rights were put into place not to guarantee our hunting rights; as GOV Quomo would like many of us to believe. The citizens have the 2nd Amendment as defense against a tyrannical government, foriegn or domestic. What gets me is what part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other elected officials don't understand? The Constitution was written in a way that anyone, even a kid, could read and understand.
Yes, what happened to those kids in CT is a tragedy however, why should law abiding citizens have to pay for Adam Lanza's crime? Why do Senators like Sen. Feinstein feel that law abiding citizens have to pay for what a few people have done in recent history? Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other elected officials don't understand? Why are those that are for gun control work feverishly to restrict law abiding citizens rights to gun ownership, but don't do anything to punish those that cause harm to their fellow man?
Now that some states have started to pass some strict gun control laws, when is the absurdity going to stop? What is going to happen when something else as crazy happens? Confiscation, because it's for the children?
In your reply, you mentioned that our 2nd Amendment rights come with limitations, does that also mean that the rest of the Constitution come with limitations as well? Does our freedom of speech, press, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and religion also come with limitations? What about the 4th Amendment, do our rights that protect us from illegal search and seizure also come with limitations? What kind of person, who serves the people of this nation is open to these so called limitations to our Constitutional rights? If the 2nd Amendment is taken away or limited (infringed), what guarantees the citizens of this country that our other Constitutional rights aren't infringed? The more I think about it, who's side is the government really on anyway? The criminal or the citizen? Your actions show the criminal. Do you believe that because new laws or restrictions that are put in place are going to make criminals not use a gun to rob someone who is unarmed? Do you, and other's with the same mindset, really believe that limiting law abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment rights, is going to curb the criminal element? Pot, heroin, crack, cocaine is already illegal. People are getting arrested daily for the sale, use, and purchase of those items. They are illegal, but it isn't keeping illegal drugs out of America.
You mentioned that the NRA rated you an "A", I don't really care what the NRA ranked you as, you still have a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. To me having an "A" rating basically tells me that you got an "A" for showing up to do your job. Either you are for the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety or you're not at all. Simple as that, there isn't any middle ground on this issue and the same goes for the rest of the Constitution.
I do think that if someone is currently on some heavy or strong, doctor prescribed drugs, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a rifle or pistol, while they are taking the prescription. Why should the use of legal doctor prescribed drugs pretty much dictate when you should be allowed to protect yourself or others? Adam Lanza, the Aurora theater shooter, and others who committed crimes of this magnitude were all on doctor prescribed psychotic drugs.
When it comes to the anti-gun people using false or wrong information to prove their point I don't see you, as an NRA "A" rated politician, correcting the person when wrong information is being repeated by other politicians. If you were a true believer in the 2nd Amendment, you would be more vocal. All people who serve in an elected government role (local, state, and federal) should remember that it was the people, or citizens, that put them in that role and those elected officials answer to the people not the President or a lobbyist. The Constitution is pretty cut and dry and it seems that the "smartest" people in the world can't seem to wrap their brain around that thought.