Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Reply from Senator Warner

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182

    Reply from Senator Warner

    Reply from Senator Warner to a recent email I sent regarding gun rights:

    Dear Mr. xxxx,

    Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on legislative efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States.

    On December 14, 2012, 20 innocent children and six adults lost their lives in one of the worst, most tragic shootings to ever occur in the United States. As a parent of three daughters, this was the ultimate nightmare. Like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings, this tragedy unfolded in what was once regarded as a safe haven free of crime and violence: a school.

    I own firearms and am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits. It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to take meaningful steps that will help us best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable.

    During the Senate's recent consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649), I was very disappointed that we could not reach the necessary 60 votes for passage of a reasonable, bipartisan amendment to strengthen background checks. This compromise legislation put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey would have closed the gun show loophole and prohibited the commercial sale of guns to those who are seriously mentally ill or have a criminal record while also upholding Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, its failure, which occurred one day after the sixth anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy, jeopardizes passage of the underlying gun safety bill, which includes our bipartisan CAMPUS Safety Act.

    There was also significant debate over proposals to ban certain types of weapons and magazines. I voted against these bans because, after talking to numerous experts, I believe the most effective thing we can do to reduce gun-related violence and keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited by law from possessing them is to pass a strong background check law.

    Moving forward, I believe that the Senate should continue to work to pass effective measures that will help to keep our children and communities safe. These include broadening background checks for gun purchases, making improvements to our mental health system so we can provide help to those with dangerous mental illnesses before it is too late, as well as measures to prevent gun trafficking, ensure all appropriate records are submitted into the background check database, and improve school and campus safety.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.

    Sincerely,
    MARK R. WARNER
    United States Senator

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Don't blame me.

    I voted for the other guy. I am not surprised by his reply.

    Neither he nor Kaine are supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Reply from Senator Warner

    The only "limit" on a right is when it interferes with the rights of another. And, in that case, it is not a right, because there is no right to infringe on the rights of another.

    Oft cited is the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater as a limit on the 1A. It is not a limit on the 1A to say that one may not do so. To make such a shout has the reasonably expected effect of causing a panic in which some will be injured, violating their rights.

    The only limits on the right to carry would be limits on behavior that would interfere with the rights of others, such as randomly shooting the damned thing off or pointing it at folks for no good reason. Then again, that is not a limitation on the right. Prohibiting such would be limiting the ability to violate the rights of others.

    Warner's position that some limitations on the right are justified is moronic. No limitations on the right can be justified, only limitations on behaviors that would violate the rights of others.

    Warner is one of these folks who claim to support the 2A without whom we could well do.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Every politician says something about supporting the second amendment.
    Mostly anti gun in sheep's clothing.

    Every once in a while though, someone will get it right.
    Scott Lingamfelter said in a recent mini speech that all his opponents seem to think the Second was about guns. It's not really about guns, it's about freedom and how we keep it.

    Warner could take some lessons from that.

  5. #5
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    How would UBC prevent Sandy Hook?

    Adress the problem not push a seperate personal agenda Senator!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    That covers it

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The only "limit" on a right is when it interferes with the rights of another. And, in that case, it is not a right, because there is no right to infringe on the rights of another.

    Oft cited is the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater as a limit on the 1A. It is not a limit on the 1A to say that one may not do so. To make such a shout has the reasonably expected effect of causing a panic in which some will be injured, violating their rights.

    The only limits on the right to carry would be limits on behavior that would interfere with the rights of others, such as randomly shooting the damned thing off or pointing it at folks for no good reason. Then again, that is not a limitation on the right. Prohibiting such would be limiting the ability to violate the rights of others.

    Warner's position that some limitations on the right are justified is moronic. No limitations on the right can be justified, only limitations on behaviors that would violate the rights of others.

    Warner is one of these folks who claim to support the 2A without whom we could well do.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    +1000

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    I've written three letters to him with various points depending on what was to be voted upon.

    I've received the identical letter to what you got -- THREE times!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Steeler-gal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    562

    Reply from Senator Warner

    Yep. I get the same letter from him every time.


    ==========================================
    NRA Certified Instructor & Range Safety Officer
    Teaching classes in Lorton VA & Springfield VA
    PM me if you need a class, RSO or safety briefing
    =============================
    NRA Certified Instructor & Range Safety Officer
    Teaching classes in Lorton VA & Springfield VA
    PM me if you need a class, RSO or safety briefing

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    How would UBC prevent Sandy Hook?

    Adress the problem not push a seperate personal agenda Senator!
    Yes, wait No....ahhh don't mention this fact.

    What's better: 20 kids being killed by goofballs once every 15 yrs or thousands being killed every year by our gov't if tyranny is allowed ?

  10. #10
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Reply from Senator Warner to a recent email I sent regarding gun rights:

    Dear Mr. xxxx,

    Sincerely,
    MARK R. WARNER
    United States Senator
    I got the same exact form letter only it had my name instead of xxxx.
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Oft cited is the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater as a limit on the 1A.
    <o>
    I yelled fire in a crowded theater ... nothing bad came out of it for me ...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    I've written three letters to him with various points depending on what was to be voted upon.

    I've received the identical letter to what you got -- THREE times!
    This reply is VERY similar to others that I have received from him with the exception that he framed this one around the recent votes... trying to play both sides of the issue (voting for 'background checks', but against other gun control bills...)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Reply from Senator Warner

    So write him again, attach a copy of this reply from him, and ask for a different reply.

    I'd expect no reply.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    So write him again, attach a copy of this reply from him, and ask for a different reply.

    I'd expect no reply.
    I've contacted him a lot, and will continue to do so... (though I dont really expect that he will ever 'represent' me or my views)

  15. #15
    Regular Member SAvage410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    176

    Non-response from Warner

    Gotta love cut and paste - that's identical to the response I received a day or two ago. That's OK. He's voted to his satisfaction. I will do the same when he's up for reelection.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Reply from Senator Warner to a recent email I sent regarding gun rights:

    Dear Mr. xxxx,

    Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on legislative efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States.

    On December 14, 2012, 20 innocent children and six adults lost their lives in one of the worst, most tragic shootings to ever occur in the United States. As a parent of three daughters, this was the ultimate nightmare. Like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings, this tragedy unfolded in what was once regarded as a safe haven free of crime and violence: a school.

    I own firearms and am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits. It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to take meaningful steps that will help us best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable.

    During the Senate's recent consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649), I was very disappointed that we could not reach the necessary 60 votes for passage of a reasonable, bipartisan amendment to strengthen background checks. This compromise legislation put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey would have closed the gun show loophole and prohibited the commercial sale of guns to those who are seriously mentally ill or have a criminal record while also upholding Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, its failure, which occurred one day after the sixth anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy, jeopardizes passage of the underlying gun safety bill, which includes our bipartisan CAMPUS Safety Act.

    There was also significant debate over proposals to ban certain types of weapons and magazines. I voted against these bans because, after talking to numerous experts, I believe the most effective thing we can do to reduce gun-related violence and keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited by law from possessing them is to pass a strong background check law.

    Moving forward, I believe that the Senate should continue to work to pass effective measures that will help to keep our children and communities safe. These include broadening background checks for gun purchases, making improvements to our mental health system so we can provide help to those with dangerous mental illnesses before it is too late, as well as measures to prevent gun trafficking, ensure all appropriate records are submitted into the background check database, and improve school and campus safety.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.

    Sincerely,
    MARK R. WARNER
    United States Senator

    yYeah well, I got the same reply. Must be a Warner letter Bot replying to these requests. Routine.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Reply from Senator Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I yelled fire in a crowded theater ... nothing bad came out of it for me ...
    First, I don't believe you for a second. I call Bravo Sierra.

    Second, if you had, there would have been a mass movement for the exits, and, if you could have been identified--or stood up like a man and admitted it, you would would have been arrested and charged with a crime.

    Then again, you make a lot of unsupported claims on OCDO.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Oft cited is the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater as a limit on the 1A. It is not a limit on the 1A to say that one may not do so. To make such a shout has the reasonably expected effect of causing a panic in which some will be injured, violating their rights.
    I've always thought this was the easiest argument to pick apart. The equivalent to not being allowed to say fire in a crowded theater is the law that says I can't start shooting randomly in a crowded theater. The equivalent to not being allowed to carry a gun in a crowded theater would be making everyone duct tape their mouth before entering the theater so they won't start yelling fire. If there's a fire you should have the ability to announce it, and if there's a threat you should have the ability to stop it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    I've always thought this was the easiest argument to pick apart. The equivalent to not being allowed to say fire in a crowded theater is the law that says I can't start shooting randomly in a crowded theater. The equivalent to not being allowed to carry a gun in a crowded theater would be making everyone duct tape their mouth before entering the theater so they won't start yelling fire. If there's a fire you should have the ability to announce it, and if there's a threat you should have the ability to stop it.
    +1

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, ,
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    First, I don't believe you for a second. I call Bravo Sierra.

    Second, if you had, there would have been a mass movement for the exits, and, if you could have been identified--or stood up like a man and admitted it, you would would have been arrested and charged with a crime.

    Then again, you make a lot of unsupported claims on OCDO.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

    Well, seeing how it's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire, his claim isn't entirely inplausible.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Reply from Senator Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by vt357 View Post
    I've always thought this was the easiest argument to pick apart. The equivalent to not being allowed to say fire in a crowded theater is the law that says I can't start shooting randomly in a crowded theater. The equivalent to not being allowed to carry a gun in a crowded theater would be making everyone duct tape their mouth before entering the theater so they won't start yelling fire. If there's a fire you should have the ability to announce it, and if there's a threat you should have the ability to stop it.
    That is exactly the point I was striving to make!

    Oh, and I still don't believe that other poster for a second. Consider the source.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    That damned analogy again....

    I see no movement to take away the mouth with which I MIGHT yell "Fire". The "reasonable restriction" instead implies that there could be punishment for misuse. Restricting my right to bear arms by disallowing bearing (as opposed to implying punishment only for misuse) is not an accurate comparison. Stop even going there!
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Back to Senator Warner....

    Mark likes his perks that go with the job. It keeps him from having to work for a living. With the next election only 2 years away he fears 2 things. He fears angering the Democrat gun owners (who's small number likely mean the difference in said election). He fears that the Virginia Republican party will find an actual candidate. Right now fear number 1 is his concern. He must appear "reasonable" and not the party hack that Ol'e Timmy Kaine is. It is all illusion, but that is how politics does not work in Virginia.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wolfhound View Post
    He fears that the Virginia Republican party will find an actual candidate.
    Based on recent trends, he doesn't have much to worry about there...

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  25. #25
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Unfortunately all too true....

    Thus, the focus on fear "1".
    Last edited by The Wolfhound; 04-23-2013 at 03:20 PM.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •