I replied to another email a included this response to an email I sent to my Senator Barack O'Bama from Illinois. I am not sure if I will be supporting him, but since I live in his district, I wanted to know his position on gun control. I wrote him a very neutral email, so he could not tell my stand a taylor his response to me. He is very careful in his response and gave a very political response. Read it and let me know what you think:



Dear Andrew:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my position on gun control and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing your interest on this important issue.

I respect the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership. But I am also concerned about the human consequences of guns falling into the wrong hands and being misused. I do not find objectionable the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of children, terrorists, gang members and criminals in general. The question for me is how to best accomplish that goal without abridging the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and other legitimate gun owners. As I consider gun legislation, I will work to find the appropriate balance between these two objectives.

Again, Andrew, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to keeping in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator


P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

Stay up to date with Barack's work in the Senate and on issues of importance to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/

ANTI!

Like Hillary, maybe a little more slick. They feel they're at the top of the food chain and believe the "people" should exist, just to exist and have no potential to threaten their positions. Hawks looking down on the ant colony. Move along, work your job, pay your tax, raise your kids, you don't need any freedom's.

Well I'd say anti. There is no "balance" to the second amendment. It's straight forward and clear. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Thus my resoning for the ANTI lable.

My point exactly

Given the Australian experience with lying politicians destroying our freedoms, there are three things I’d say about his response:
1. Typical politician. Nice and wordy, designed to make you feel all warm and cared for, but doesn’t actually say anything
2. An obvious Anti. All the reference to reasonable balance between community protection and your freedoms is code for “ban the lot”. An Anti can make every restriction look “reasonable”.
3. Will have been written by a staffer and not the Senator. Problem is the same staffer will be writing the policy and drafting the laws once their front man is elected.

He's an Illinois democrat, how can anybody think he would not be ANTI-GUN. Just my 2 cents worth.

Good Shootin

He's a smoothe talking Democrat and can't be trusted. Vote for him and vote your 2nd amendment away. They are all alike. Why do these people equate the 2nd amendment with insuring gun ownership for hunters and sportsmen. IT'S NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!