• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Reply from Senator Warner

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
That covers it

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
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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!
 

Steeler-gal

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
560
Location
Fairfax County, VA
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 ?
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
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...)
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
So write him again, attach a copy of this reply from him, and ask for a different reply.

I'd expect no reply.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
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)
 

SAvage410

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
187
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
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.
 

stickslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Woodbridge
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

vt357

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
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
 

vtme_grad98

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
385
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, ,
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.
 
Top