Lunch with Pro-Gun Control State Rep

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
26
Location
Michigander residing in Indiana
Folks:

I'm going to have a unique opportunity this coming Monday. I and a colleague here at IUPUI in Indianapolis are having lunch with my State Rep, David Orentlicher. What precipitated this was an article in the Indianapolis Star:

http://tinyurl.com/2rcezv

Both my colleague and I were troubled by the legislation he was proposing, i.e. limiting the purchase of a handgun to only one a month. Also we both were insulted by a statement in the article made by Paul Helmke, the former mayor of Fort Wayne and president of the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence. He said:

"The lobby for the NRA and their supporters is strong, and so politicians are afraid," he said. "I've been a politician almost my whole life, so I understand it. These gun pushers are rabid about this issue."

I wrote David, who also teaches here at IUPUI, saying that I am a member of the NRA and support their efforts. To be labeled a "rabid gun pusher" was troubling. I suggested that:

"If you're free for lunch sometime, we could meet and discuss these issues as I get the sense that the circles you move in have few firearms owners and sportsmen (and women) while here, even in the IU School of Liberal Arts, I know several and respect them as colleagues and consider them my friends."

My colleague wrote:

"As a C & R FFL holder, NRA member, collector of WWII firearms (including handguns) and attendee at "gun shows" and one of your colleagues at IUPUI, I wish to express concern about being labeled a "gun pusher" and a rabid one at that. At any given show I may purchase two or more firearms, including handguns, for my collection. The idea that I should be restricted to one a month is patently absurd. You need to inform yourself about who attends and participates in collectors' events such as the Indy Gun and Knife Show. That we are buying lots of AK-47's and handguns for sale to felons is just not true. I understand your honest desire to cure societal ills, but legislation of the kind you're suggesting is only a palative and goes against the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."

And, to give him credit, David Orentlicher agreed to meet us both and have lunch! So here's my question, if you were in my shoes, what would you say over lunch?

Wayne Husted
 
I'm sure there are members more practiced than me, but I use 2 points when talking with fence sitters:

1 - The BOR defines inalienable human rights, endowed in every citizen. The right to bear arms isn't a privelage the government has bestowed upon an idividiual, it is a right the person inherently has, and the BORindentifies this fact, and explicitly forbids the government from limiting it in any way. You don't eliminate criminals by taking away the rights of the law-abiding.

2 - In most cases, criminals have guns in violation of existing law. Creating new laws isn't going to change that fact. The only thing more restrictive laws will accomplish is disarming law-abiding citizens and creating a safer criminal environment.

I'm sure others here will have more ideas for you.

Thank you for taking the time to meet with him. Good luck.
 
1. I've purchased less than one firearm per year, but I have purchased more than one in a given day. With gun shops closing and the elimination of the hobbiest FFL it is hard for me to get to gun stores that are only open 9-5 on work days. When I do get a chance it's nice to be able to make it worth the time off work.

2. A criminal with one gun is one criminal too many. The limit won't help anyhow because it applies to guns and not violence.

3. Why not a baseball bat limit too then? It's wrong to only care about gun victims, victims of other types of violence are people too. It's narrow minded to think that a knife death is somehow preferable to being shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top