Letters to OFCC: What part of 'Shall Not Infringe' does Kerry not understand?
OFCC President Jeff Garvas' letter about John Kerry's stance on guns has generated quite a reaction from readers of this website from all over the country. Garvas' letter was written in response to a supposedly pro-gun voter who is supporting "Million" Mom/ Brady bunch candidate John Kerry...
Mr. Jeff Garvas,
I read your piece regarding Mr. Kerry's stance on guns. Well done.
I attend many political rallies in my home state and am not afraid to
ask pointed questions of candidates. Whenever a candidate for office claims
to be "a supporter of the 2nd Amendment" while also claiming to support "common
sense restrictions", I always follow up with the following question of that
candidate:
You do understand that the 2nd Amendment is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? If that's the case, exactly what
part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Respectfully,
Lee McGee
Jeanerette, LA
--------------------------
Re: A Message From the President About John Kerry:
In case anyone has some disbeliefs of [Kerry and guns], maybe you should get the word from the horses mouth:
Look up John Kerry and tell me if that is someone that who is pro gun.
Anonymous
--------------------------
Political Bias?
I applaud your efforts to refrain from criticism of national politics. As a grass roots group dedicated to the right to carry in Ohio, you have done a great job of focusing on the task of getting a law passed and now on reforming the flawed law. I find that your information is not intended to deceive, rather to inform. Your (and my) cause to reform firearm laws and better society is a great task that requires much work, and I truly appreciate your efforts.
Your news statement about John Kerry being a poor choice for President is very accurate. You cannot hide from your past, especially if you are running for the highest office in the land. One thing is very clear about this November election: If John Kerry is elected President of the United States of America, our rights as gun owners will be in the greatest peril since the foundation of our country.
The quote "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" would apply in terms of world policy and domestic policy. Nobody can possibly argue that our lives would change drastically due to who is President with one exception: the new boss could support legislation to take away our right to own a firearm.
John Kerry has supported legislation to take away guns. Period.
He is the wrong man to be President. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and amended it to include the Right to Bear Arms, second only to the right to free speech. I find it hypocritical that John Kerry says the Patriot Act restricts the First Amendment while legislation to restrict the Second Amendment would be OK. Please, please vote for our right to self-defense, our right to bear arms in November.
David Volk
Blissfield, Michigan
--------------------------
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
Why John Kerry is the WORST candidate ever:
Well, lets see, I have no idea where to begin. I suppose we can start with the obvious fact that John Kerry flip-flops on about every single major issue in the presidential debate. For example, he has changed his views several times on gun control, the war in Iraq, trade with China, gay marriage, NAFTA, affirmative action, etc.
He changes his opinion simply to gain a good reputation with the public and to gain votes (seeing as how when the war was ok with the American people, he agreed with it and now when the people do not agree with it, all of the sudden he doesn't either). He is clearly fake, agreeing with liberals at times and then often supporting many conservative positions as well.
Moreover, as far as the people disagreeing with the war in Iraq is concerned, they have no reason to support Kerry, seeing as though Kerry''s views on the war are EXACTLY THE SAME AS BUSHES''. His talks about understanding the hardships and struggles of living lower class are clearly backed up by his $550 million dollars and the fact that he had the best schooling and housing money can buy (look who he is married to, does the last name H-E-I-N-Z ring a bell?).
John Kerry talks about finding more jobs for American citizens, when he agreed with Clinton''s "reform", which put millions of poor people off of welfare (which he also supports) and forced them into low-wage jobs. He and his wife also own roughly 51 major companies overseas and are not hiring Americans, but foreigners, who receive subsistence wages (I wonder why?). That is all I have to say about that.
Oh, and by the way, that "anonymous" writer who obviously doesn't know what he/she is talking about; the issue on Kerry being pro gun, you might want to check up on that issue, he may have changed his views on that several times by now. Take care!
-Julian Parks
--------------------------
And this from the Oct. 13 Columbus Dispatch:
Kerry tries to hide stance on firearms
I live on a farm in a somewhat remote area of Knox County. The sheriff’s office cannot provide security for me or my family. I need a firearm for home defense, to deal with the occasional varmint and also for recreational use.
Sen. John Kerry has been part of a coalition of liberal senators that has constantly tried to chip away at the right of private citizens to own firearms. The Americans for Democratic Action rates Kerry as the most liberal senator in Congress.
Liberal governments in Britain, France and Australia have essentially banned private ownership of guns. As a result, their violent crime rates are exploding. A recent article in USA Today reported France’s violent-crime rate is higher than ours.
A recent Kerry commercial shows him hunting, and another one shows him holding a shotgun. This is an obvious attempt to mask his consistent voting record against the rights of gun owners.
For this reason, and several others, I will vote for someone else.
Lynn McCann
Centerburg
Related Stories:
A Message From the President about John Kerry...
- 903 reads
