Tulsi Gabbard, the fourth of five children, spent her life growing up in beautiful Hawai‘i. As a teenager, she co-founded an environmental non-profit called Healthy Hawai’i Coalition, focused on educating children about protecting Hawaii’s environment. An advocate for environmental policy, Tulsi was elected to the Hawai‘i State Legislature in 2002 when she was just 21 years old, becoming the youngest person ever elected in the state. A year later, she joined the Hawai‘i Army National Guard to serve Hawai‘i and our country. In 2004, Tulsi volunteered to deploy with her fellow soldiers, becoming the first state official to voluntarily step down from public office to serve in a war zone.



Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service in the Army National Guard as a Military Police Major. In between her two tours, Tulsi served in the U.S. Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), where she advised him on energy independence, homeland security, the environment, and veteran issues.



In 2010, Tulsi was elected to the Honolulu City Council, serving as Chair of the Safety, Economic Development, and Government Affairs Committee and Vice Chair of the Budget Committee. Tulsi was elected in 2012 to the United States House of Representatives, serving Hawaii’s 2nd District. She is one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first and only Hindu member. Days after being sworn in to her first term in Congress, Tulsi was selected to serve as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee.


Tulsi Gabbard ~ Democrat ~ Congress Woman ~ Hawaii


Now in her second term in Congress, Tulsi brings with her a broad range of real world experience, a storehouse of personal strength, and tested leadership as she represents the people of Hawai’i and our nation in Congress. As she works on the challenges that face our country, she remains focused on bringing her pragmatic approach to working in a collaborative, bipartisan fashion to find real solutions that best serve the people. Tulsi serves on the House Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she is a strong advocate for veterans, our service members, and making smart strategic decisions that best secure our nation. Tulsi is working every day to make sure we have a sustainable economy that works for all families, with access to affordable health care, good jobs, and a quality education.







And It’s Here To Stay

Dual at Diablo


from President Barack Obama

On March 23, 2010, I sat down at a table in the East Room of the White House and signed my name on a law that said, once and for all, that health care would no longer be a privilege for a few. It would be a right for everyone.

Five years later, after more than 50 votes in Congress to repeal or weaken this law and multiple challenges before the Supreme Court, here is what we know today:

This law worked. It’s still working. It has changed and saved American lives. It has set this country on a smarter, stronger course.

And it’s here to stay…



This morning (June 25, 2015), the Supreme Court upheld one of the most critical parts of health reform — the part that has made it easier for Americans to afford health insurance, no matter where you live.

If the challenges to this law had succeeded, millions would have had thousands of dollars in tax credits taken away. Insurance would have once again become unaffordable for many Americans. Many would have even become uninsured again. Ultimately, everyone’s premiums could have gone up.

Because of this law, and because of today’s decision, millions of Americans will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about 8 in 10 people who buy insurance on the new Health Insurance Marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month.



If you’re a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26 — something that has covered millions of young people so far. That’s because of this law. If you’re a senior, or have a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions — something that has saved 9 million Americans an average of $1,600 so far. If you’re a woman, you can’t be charged more than anybody else — even if you’ve had cancer, or your husband had heart disease, or just because you’re a woman. Your insurer has to offer free preventive services like mammograms. They can’t place annual or lifetime caps on your care.

And when it comes to preexisting conditions — someday, our grand kids will ask us if there was really a time when America discriminated against people who got sick. Because that’s something this law has ended for good.



Five years in and more than 16 million insured Americans later, this is no longer just about a law. This isn’t just about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare…

Today is a victory for every American whose life will continue to become more secure because of this law. And 20, 30, 50 years from now, most Americans may not know what “Obamacare” is. And that’s okay. That’s the point.

Because today, this reform remains what it always has been — a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in America more affordable, more attainable, and more about you.



That’s who we are as Americans. We look out for one another. We take care of each other. We root for one another’s success. We strive to do better, to be better, than the generation before us, and we try to build something better for the generation that comes behind us.

And today, with this behind us, let’s come together and keep building something better. That starts right now.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

June 25, 2015





Gun Law in Colorado

by Steve Lipsher / The Denver Post

August 6, 2013 (still valid today)

Today's musket ~ NRA style

(Today’s) recall elections of Colorado Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron — both Democrats — stand as a twisted version of “democracy at the barrel of a gun.”

Proponents of the recall petitions are angry that Morse and Giron supported measures in the past legislative session that — heaven forbid — require every gun purchase to go through a background check and limit the number of bullets that pre-loaded magazines can hold.

Most of the sane world sees those as common-sense steps intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics and prevent them from creating the kind of unspeakable carnage that we’ve already seen in Colorado at Columbine High School and the Century Aurora theater.

Polls consistently indicate that more than 80 percent of the population supports universal background checks and at least 60 percent supports the limit on ammunition magazines.

But backers of the recall insist that Morse and Giron “ignored” their constituents — namely, themselves — and they want their heads on pikes as a warning to others who would dare infringe on what they perceive to be their sacred, inviolable Second Amendment rights.

Recall proponents singled out Morse because he is the high-profile leader of the Senate and considered vulnerable, having won re-election in 2010 by a scant 340 votes in an electorally split Colorado Springs district.

Giron, who wasn’t even a particularly outspoken supporter of the gun bills, is being recalled because … well, apparently because the gun-activist front organization Basic Freedom Defense Fund could pay for enough petition signatures to meet the lower total-vote threshold in her district and get her hauled back to the ballot.

Meanwhile, they failed to gain enough support to recall two other Democrats, Sen. Mike McLachlan, D-Durango, and Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster. (Never mind that dozens of other legislators also voted in favor of the bills, and Gov. John Hickenlooper signed them into law.)

That lawmakers would face recalls over this single issue — reasonable checks on who has access to guns — would be considered ridiculous in any other society.

But in a bloodthirsty country where the National Rifle Association keeps members of Congress completely petrified and incapable of passing even the most tepid gun restrictions despite our embarrassing off-the-chart murder rate, this effort stands as reasonable political discourse.

Similar unfounded credibility is given to the effort by a few dozen malcontents and cranks in northeastern Colorado who want to break away and form a new state, also in a pique over those “goldarned lawmakers in Denver takin’ away our Second Amendment rights,” among other things.

Of course, few of those who believe that the new gun laws trample on the Bill of Rights actually are part of any “well-regulated militia” spelled out — but routinely ignored by gun proponents — in the actual text of the Second Amendment.

No one is taking their guns. No one is creating a gun registry long rumored by fear-mongers. No one is even telling them they can’t accumulate more firepower than several small countries or doomsday religious sects.

The state is telling them, however, that if they’re on a murderous rampage, they’re going to have to reload after 15 shots, not 100.

That doesn’t sound unreasonable.

Backed by the NRA and the equally absolutist Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the recall is intended only to intimidate lawmakers and hold them at the barrel’s end of their virtual guns.

It was without a hint of irony that original recall proponent Tim Knight of Durango told The Gazette in Colorado Springs about his motivation in the effort: “Democracy is being held hostage.”

Here’s hoping that the recalls both fail, serving as a punch to the bullies’ noses and giving notice that lawmakers may stand up to the gun nuts with the backing of the vast majority of us who are sick of innocent people dying in Littleton and Tucson and Sandy Hook and Aurora.

Steve Lipsher ( of Silverthorne writes a monthly column for The Denver Post.

NRA Court Jesters



The National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders, as vocalized by Wayne La Pierre (its spokesman) & Ted Nugent (a board member), seem to believe NRA members lack enough durability and intellect to obtain a gun license, and to register and insure their guns ~ and thus obtain partnership with their democracy and government.

The NRA leadership is alienating their members from the rest of the national population via paranoia, conspiracy hoaxes, and a dumb logic so full of loopholes that it resembes taxes for the rich in the United States of America.  The mass murder of children in an elementary school by an over-armed citizen in 2012 seems to have generated such reaction instead of an attempt to work & compromise with the rest of the nation in order to narrow the possibility of such evil to occur again.  Instead, the NRA leadership’s knowledge & ownership of deadly hardware seems to have gone to its head.  Consequently, all that they inspire is a goon-ish & blatant backpedal into Civil War consciousness.  These NRA leaders seem to want to generate targets for their well-armed members ~ so that they have something very serious to take pot-shots at ~ like U.S. drones, attack helicopters, warthog planes, F-14 fighter jets, and other armed vehicles, not to mention American soldiers & policemen.

The NRA leaders’ most viable role in American society & politics, around the corner, if not already, is as their membership’s & the gun industry’s court jesters. 

If I was an NRA member, I’d campaign for & elect some real leaders…




Gun Law

how 'bout a ride


“Well Regulated”


I would like to argue in favor of potentially deadly firearms being treated on the same par as potentially dangerous privately-owned motor vehicles.  In other words, I am for federally-dictated state-run licensing, registration, and insurance requirements for gun ownership and utilization.  Of course, nobody who owns a firearm wants to do this.  I remember years ago I didn’t want to be forced to buy insurance for my car.  But when it became illegal not to do so, I did.  So go ahead, I’d like to see you keep a keen watch on our government ~ locked and loaded ~ and licensed registered insured…


2nd Amendment


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Gun Logic


I’ve noticed whenever a gun “expert” argues against gun regulation of any kind, that eventually, if not right away, their logic falls apart 2 or 3 times by the time they’ve made their point.
For example, when the celebrated National Rifle Association (NRA) spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, explains the uselessness of government gun buybacks, he says in a book he wrote, Shooting Straight, that some people are thus encouraged to steal guns to sell them.  I think he’s stretching logic like a rubber band here.  So I say, well, Wayne, lock-up the guns you want to keep during the gun buyback so that nobody steals them.  There you go: 1+1=2…
~ Rawclyde!

NRA leaders flirt with treason…

civl war gettysburg


by Keith Darling-Brekhus

April 10, 2013


The NRA’s leadership embraces an insurrectionist ideology that asserts that the intent of the second amendment is to permit American citizens to shoot and kill federal agents and law enforcement officers in the event that they believe those agents are attempting to facilitate or impose some form of government tyranny. This dangerous doctrine, that flirts with committing treason, is the cornerstone of the gun lobby’s opposition to any and all forms of gun regulation. This ideology is explicitly expressed by many of the NRA’s congressional supporters. For example, freshman Republican Congressman Ted Yoho of Florida, an NRA (National Rifle Association) endorsed candidate in 2012, refusing to yield any concessions on gun regulation, recently told a reporter that it was the birthright of every American to have “the same equipment as the military.” Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre argued that, “without any doubt” Americans need the firepower to fight back against the government if government agents come knocking at the door. In 2009, at the CPAC Convention, LaPierre stated bluntly that “Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

In 2010, Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle voiced thinly veiled approval for the assassination of her Democratic opponent, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, when she stated that “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” The same year, Allen West’s future chief of staff bluntly remarked “If ballots don’t work, bullets will.” Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann insisted in 2009, that she wanted her constituents “armed and dangerous” to fight an energy tax bill.

The most frightening part about this insurrectionist ideology is that the people who adhere to it, already believe we are living under tyranny or headed rapidly in that direction. With this in mind, many of them already contend that the time for armed insurrection is now or at least it is coming very soon. For example, the day after Barack Obama’s historic election victory in 2008, NRA board member and former Montana sheriff Jay Printz authored a blog post that stated menacingly, “Well, my friends, it looks like we had better put in a good supply of powder and lead!!!!” and on the same day he posted an image that stated, “When they come for your guns…give them your bullets!”

In 2011, Schaeffer Cox, head of the Second Amendment Task Force and the Alaska Peacemakers Militia was arrested with four of his followers and charged with conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, and arson. He was sentenced to a 25 year prison term. Cox believed the US was sliding into tyranny and he bragged, incorrectly I might add, that he and his supporters had the government “outmanned and outgunned.” Cox’s petition to justify overthrowing the US government was signed by NRA board member and Alaska Republican Congressman Don Young.

In March of 2012, a Republican Committee county chair in Virginia published a newsletter that exemplifies the insurrectionist philosophy of the gun lobby and the Republican far right. The newsletter argued that America under Obama was so tyrannical that if he could not be voted out in November, armed insurrection would become necessary. It read, in part, “We have before us a challenge to remove an ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized … The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware that the government, their government, is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse [sic] but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

This year, the Wisconsin branch of the NRA circulated a newsletter calling for armed revolt against the US government. The newsletter argued that “elections are not the solution to our problem; elections are the problem” and it called for toppling the US government. When the definition of tyranny extends to a democratically elected president, and elections are defined as the problem rather than a solution, the strident voices calling for armed rebellion are not patriots but rather they are more akin to traitors ready and willing to betray the democracy we live in to pursue their own selfish and misguided ends.

Nobody has expressed the NRA’s insurrectionist philosophy more eloquently than board member, serial convicted wildlife poacher and “past his prime” misogynist rock musician Ted Nugent, who while hoisting two machine guns on stage during a concert screamed with unbridled hostility “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary! You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent concluded his vicious hate-filled rant by shouting the word “freedom!”

Rejecting Insurrectionist Guerrilla War Fantasies

The debate over regulating guns is a contentious one and a necessary one in a functioning democracy. Individuals have a right to self-protection and to recreational hunting and target shooting. However, neither self-protection nor recreation require unlimited access to military grade weapons, and citizens have a right to a reasoned debate on what gun law reforms might be necessary in the wake of tremendous tragedies like the Aurora theater shooting, the Sikh temple murders and the Sandy Hook massacre. Such difficult debates warrant a public discussion on the merits of gun legislation and what measures can be done to improve public safety without violating the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Reason does not however dictate that we continue to indulge the paranoid rantings and delusional fantasies of militant fanatics whose grasp of reality is so thin that they make comparisons between Barack Obama and tyrants like Adolf Hitler, with no sense of irony and no acknowledgement of hyperbole. In these twisted fantasies, any attempt to curtail any type of weaponry or to require any type of background check is tantamount to tyranny. No government agency is intent on disarming the American citizenry simply by advocating a few sensible pieces of legislation designed to curb gun violence. The idea that the US federal government is determined to disarm and enslave us, has no credible evidence on its side. The fact that gun-toting ideologues can not distinguish between a text like “Mein Kampf” and a text like “The Audacity of Hope”, is but one of the flaws of the insurrrectionist line of thinking. Passing an energy tax, raising corporate income taxes or enacting an expansion of government assistance for health care does not constitute tyranny. Setting a limit on magazine sizes no more leads down the slippery slope to gun confiscation than setting a speed limit leads to automobile confiscation.

The notion that citizens need to have military style weaponry to fight their government implies that the government is intent on waging war on the citizenry, a notion that is on the surface absurd. Yes, our government does sometimes violate the civil liberties of some of the nation’s citizens and we as a nation must collectively be vigilant in fighting government excesses. However, the paranoid fantasy that we need to resist our government by force or that the idea that any one citizen has the right or the ability to wage war on the government and win is simply lunacy.

President Obama has not committed his Munich Beer Hall Putsch nor instigated his version of Krystallnacht, and any suggestion that this nation’s government is on a march to disarm the population and enslave us in concentration camps because we do not have enough AR-15s at our disposal is not a serious argument and it does not belong in a reasonable debate among women and men deciding the future of our nation. The fact that a powerful gun lobby’s board of directors and their allies in Congress embrace such nonsensical paranoia is not sufficient reason to treat their arguments as if they hold intellectual merit, no matter how often they are repeated on the cable news networks.

If the men and women in the NRA leadership and their Congressional supporters want to fantasize about waging guerrilla warfare against the federal government they have the freedom to do that and nobody has yet taken the guns away from Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent or Don Young despite their incendiary rhetoric. However, when they throw their tantrums and launch rhetorical firebombs at the government, we do not have to accept their claims of patriotism and let them wrap those arguments in the American flag. In a functioning democracy, armed insurrection is not a form of patriotism. It is treason and the NRA leadership is flirting with treason when they embrace paranoid insurrectionist fantasies and abandon all reason in the process. It is time we call it what it is and stop treating such arguments as intellectually valid or morally defensible.


courtesy of Gun Control Now USA:


Another gun-fighter speech by President Obama…

Duel At Diablo5


The President’s Afterword

on the defeat of the common-sense gun regulation bill in the U.S. Senate

April 17, 2013


A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that’s already the law.

And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.

A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.

In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.

But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.

To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.

To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they’re better organized. They’re better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can’t have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.

And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve been doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed to change something after Tucson.

And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.


Photo: “Duel at Diablo” 1966


Reply to Sen. Jeff Flake (R.AZ)…



Hello Senator Jeff Flake ~

In a reply to an e-mail I sent you in regard to gun law, you educated me on S. 480, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013.  Thank you.  S. 480 sounds like good gun legislation indeed.  However, I wonder, is it enough?

You & I & most everybody support the 2nd Amendment.  But part of this amendment entails “a well-regulated militia.”  Are we “well regulated” enough when a string of senseless mass murders finally culminates in 20 children & their teachers getting slaughtered in their school by an over-armed citizen?  Six-year-old children, 20 of them & their young attractive woman educaters are too many heart-throbs killed, Senator.  This cannot be tolerated.  Your electoral base, I believe, might be shrinking here.

I, being neither Republican or Democrat but an independent voter, would like to risk a suggestion that you and your fellow Republican senators reach across the aisle & help the Democrats tidy-up their own efforts at common-sense gun regulation ~ and regulate firearms just as severely as privately-owned motor vehicles are regulated via licensing, registration & insurance.  I am afraid you will be hounded until a clampdown like this occurs in regards to the ownership & bearing of firearms.

When the Newtown disaster occurred, I was a winter guest in the home of a married couple, one of whom, the wife, is a first-grade teacher.  This is probably why I have thought so much about Congress’s recent gun-law efforts.  She was pretty wild in her day, but now, as a public-school teacher of lst graders, she works entirely too hard to not have in her domain of labor the back-up of adequate gun regulation & safety.

Thank you, sir, for taking the time to consider my thoughts on this matter.

Respectfully yours ~




Photo: Tim McCoy & Bannock Indians 1922