Hunting Forum

I wrote and emailed Sen Casey about certain issues a few times and the usual response is he knows better than voters and that's they way it is.
The last topic I emailed and wrote to him was the Feinstein attempt on gun bans.  I reminded him that no rifle was used in Sandy Hook and in fact the rifle claimed to have been used by the media was already illegal there so another ban would accomplish nothing.
His response?

"As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.  Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution.  I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection.  However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare.  According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon.  He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more.  After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines.  In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment."


Notice the part where he states  that a semiauto rifle was used and 30 round magazines AFTER he knew the facts?  Or the part where he says banning these will lessen the chances of Sandy Hook happening again?Banning something that was NOT used will lessen repeat chances how?  Maybe when he1st says he is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and later supports a federal ban.  Unduly abridge the right to bear arms?  So now it is fine to abridge the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner?

Calling his office and mentioning these issues resulted in somehow being disconnected twice, wonder how that happened.

We know that they use the MO of telling a lie long enough and people will start to believe it. This is another case of having the truth and facts yet they choose to ignore both and use their own take to support their agenda.

Sounds very similar to the response I received from my idiotic Congressman Jim Clyburn!!!

The Charleston newspaper had an article in it this week that mentioned Obama is considering Clyburn to head the Transportation Department.  I hope like hell he gets the appointment, so we can get rid of his sorry azz!!!!!!!!!!!  Besides, as Transportation Secretary, he might be able to get his proposed "bridge to nowhere" finally built on the upper Santee!!!!!!

The one I got from Pastor(D) here was quite similar as well. It also came from an address that would not take any messages back from me. Gutless POS.

The returns that I have gotten from a democrat and a republican both said the same thing .They are both against gun bans ,but do support background checks .

Sen Casey gets even better! I contacted his office through email and explained why I was unhappy with his response to my original contact. Guess what he sends back! the EXACT same email he sent a few days ago! I tried calling his office again to try and explain this, but again as soon as I start the phone mysteriously goes CLICK.

Seems to me they all know the FACTS but only pistols were used in sand hook. Check the films the rifle was in the trunk of the car,

Again, Lindsey Graham, has voiced his support of the Second Amendment, while indicating he does not support universal background checks. Now if we can convince him to stop supporting the amnesty program we might have him headed in the right direction. He's showing some promise with his comments on Hagel.