The latest from Jane

imported post

Dear Tax Paying Serf:

My thanks for contacting me with your views on gun control legislation.
I apologize for any delay in my response.

I support gun-ownership by law-abiding citizens who are competent to
use, and safely secure, the weapons they own. However, I believe that
some gun control laws are necessary, and I voted for the Brady law to
impose a waiting period before permitting someone to buy a handgun.

Furthermore, I believe military-style assault weapons are not necessary
for self protection nor do they serve a valid sporting purpose and
that current loopholes in the law which permit copycat assault weapons to
be sold should be closed. I do not feel minors should be able to
purchase guns, and, as a parent, I worry about the ability of our children
to access guns and cause serious harm to others in our schools.

Additionally, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons
Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which renews the assault
weapons ban that Congress permitted to expire in 2004. The bill would ban
the production, possession, or transfer of certain kinds of assault
weapons and ammunition clips—some of the deadliest weapons currently
available.

I appreciate you taking the time to contact me, Please continue to be
in touch.

Regards,

JANE HARMAN
Member of Congress
http://www.house.gov/harman

imported post

1. Assault is an action... not a gun.

2. "some of the deadliest weapons currently available." Ummmm, I guess everything else only hurts. BUT an ASSAULT RIFLE can actually kill you because its DEADLY...:quirky

3. Come on lady, get a life, dictionary, and a sense of purpose.

imported post

Clearing up that assault is an action probably helps. More important would be a full explanation of how the anti-gunners stole and re-defined the term "assault rifle" by pretending that look-alike weapons are the same as the real thing.

Anybody ever seen that little ploy exposed in the media?

imported post

I support gun-ownership by law-abiding citizens who are competent to
use, and safely secure, the weapons they own.

Click to expand...

Interesting. This draws a newdistinction on the 2Abecause our forefathers didnt see fit to restrict ownership or use of firearmsto the 'law-abiding' or the 'competent'. This is because they knew thatpeople are first fallable and second, the standards of what constitutes'law-abiding' and 'competency' are easily movable variables. For instance, restrictions on ownership dependent on a person's competency could narrow ownership to those who are capable of demonstrating knowledge and proficiency with weapons and knowledge of lawsunder ever increasing difficulty. This leads us into denying firearms ownership to those whocannot read or write, those who have trouble with comprehension, those who are disabled; such as the blind, deaf, amputees, or parapalegic, those who have suffered diminished capacity from a stroke or seizures.

However, I believe that some gun control laws are necessary, and I voted for the Brady law to impose a waiting period before permitting someone to buy a handgun.

Click to expand...

However?The first sentence written already indicates thatJane wishes to rewrite the 2A, by restricting ownership and use to only 'law-abiding' and competent citizens.Using'however' generally indicates a change in direction- instead there is more of the same subject- more gun regulation.

Furthermore, I believe military-style assault weapons are not necessary
for self protection nor do they serve a valid sporting purpose and
that current loopholes in the law which permit copycat assault weapons to
be sold should be closed.

Click to expand...

So our military should defend themselves with what? Harsh language?If you plan todisarm citizens with your legislation it should also apply to our armed forces. You see, what our founding fathers believed was that the people should have whatever armswere issued to the standing armies of the day. This was because it was commonly believed that a standing army represented asgreat a threat to freedom as the tyrantKing George was. These military-style assault weapons can be used for sporting purposes, but their REAL purpose is for the security of a free State. If someone chooses to commit a crime with their military-style assault weapons, there are laws already on the books to prosecute them with- without interfering with the rights of 'law-abiding' and 'competent' citizens.

I do not feel minors should be able to purchase guns, and, as a parent, I worry about the ability of our children to access guns and cause serious harm to others in our schools.

Click to expand...

Uhm- it's already illegal to sell a firearm to a minor.There is also a law on the books that places stiff penalties on gun-owners who do not secure their firearms fromchildren- every gun store is mandated to have a signdetailing this requirement.If this isnt ignorance of the law, the only other thing it might beis a prelude to add morerestrictions on the 'law-abiding' and 'competent' citizen gunowners.

Additionally, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons
Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which renews the assault
weapons ban that Congress permitted to expire in 2004.

The bill would ban the production, possession, or transfer of certain kinds of assault weapons and ammunition clips—some of the deadliest weapons currently available.

Click to expand...

Deadliest weapons currently available? Boy, that sounds scary. The funny thing is, that the firearms banned in H.R. 1022 are no more deadly than the muskets and flintlocks used in years past. Whethersomeone isshot dead with a musket ball or a hollowpoint bullet from a banned assault weapon- the results are the same. (Granted, I'd much rather have a high powered rifle...)

If someone wants to ban the deadliest weapons currently available, they would have to start with stockpiles of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons in the possession of our government. They are a greater threat than any ofmy four lousy guns.

A clip is something that holds paper together- How a clip figures into assault weapons escapes me. Perhaps Jane is refering to a MAGAZINE. (Of course she is- she's just not educated in the nuances in our little enclave.)

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

she's just not educated....

Click to expand...

You were overthinking your response to her letter. This version is a much simplier and easier to understand synopsis.

Harmon is a perfect example of how peoplein politicshave no clue what the law is and what the word "rights" means. Harmon, like most career politicians, is only in it for herself at our expense.

imported post

" . . . and ammunition clips—some of the deadliest weapons currently
available."



Gee, I've been spending thousands on guns, and all I needed was a few ammo clips.

John