Lugar's Response er...written communication of is non-position on the UN Treaty

[Dorky_D]

I just thought I would contribute this to the cause. Feel free to write your senators about your opinion of this! Also, for those that are not 'Gun Talk with Tom Grasham' listeners (podcast for me). He said yesterday, that now is the time to be writing your Senators. To paraphrase his words: "Tell them that you want them not only oppose the treaty, but actively speak out against it. Tell them that if they do not you will actively oppose their re-election with money, influence, friends etc." I thought that was a good way to encourage them and hold them accountable for their actions and/or inactions. I would be careful how to word it in a non-lunatic manner, but please write them and let them know this is important to you and many like you!

Below is the text from Lugar:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the control of small arms. I appreciate this opportunity to respond.

I support the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for sporting, collecting, and defensive purposes; I also support Indianalaw related to the purchase and ownership of firearms. Indiana's Constitution provides both a liberty and a property right to bear firearms, which is stronger Second Amendment protection than the residents of many states enjoy.

Although there have been international discussions of a conceptual treaty related to the trade of conventional weapons, a global treaty on this subject has not yet been negotiated. If a treaty is signed by a President in the future it would be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, requiring the very high standard of a two thirds vote.

To date, the Administration has not engaged with the Senate on such a treaty. Any treaty dealing with arms should receive extremely close scrutiny to ensure that it does not infringe on the Constitutional rights of Americans.

I will continue to follow this matter closely. Thank you, again, for contacting me.

 

[GBuck]

Yeah... There are a lot of people that have written him, and we all get the same response back. He's basically saying, "I support the second, but I'm not going to do anything about it." I'm glad he is out of office come fall.

 

[edporch]

Yeah... There are a lot of people that have written him, and we all get the same response back. He's basically saying, "I support the second, but I'm not going to do anything about it." I'm glad he is out of office come fall.

But Lugar doesn't actually support the 2nd Amendment.

He told me in past communications with him that he DOESN'T SUPPORT the right of individuals to own semi-automatic versions of the AR15 or AK47.

That's all I need to hear to know that he's a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.

Also, didn't he say a while back that the idea of him actually governing according to the US Constitution was "utopian"?

Lugar can't be trusted, and don't be surprised when he gives us a "parting shot" of some kind before he leaves office.

 

[TheRude1]

Why should he care

1.He was booted i the last election
2. He dont live here(Bett he will NEVER live here again-he holds property- BFD)
3. He has turned into a leftist
4. He's a nutty old man
5. H'es a BUTT NUT(AKA Dingleberry)

I knew he would'nt care anyway

 

[JoP]

I hesitate to even enter this discussion, but here I go:

I had the opportunity to hear the Senator speak about the 2nd amendment back before the primary. His statement was that he supports 2nd and Indiana law (just as he stated in response to the OP's comments). He also stated at that time that he would not want the laws of Indiana to be forced on the people of New York or California or the laws of those places enforced on Indiana (and I wouldn't want their laws forced on us either).

The Senator has a past of being on a different side of gun related issues than me, but from following the Senator I honestly believe that in his opinion and with his background that he believes his position is for the best. (I disagree with that conclusion). I also believe that he does not have a position on the treaty yet because there is no treaty that has been agreed upon.

Disagree with the Senator all you like, but time and again I have seen him review a situation/legislation as it stands and base his vote on reasoning and logic on the table at that time. Even in the situations where I disagree with the Senator's stance and take the other side he has explained his reasoning and I appreciate that.

What that would mean for how he would vote if this treaty were passed as it is or in a different form...I don't know ...but it's just mean-spirited to say he's crazy.

...please don't hit me...

 

[Birds Away]

Dick Luger just lost his way. In his endless search for the "common ground" and reasonable compromise across the aisle he was repeatedly hornshwaggled by those crafty libs. What the good Senator never learned is that before entering into compromise you must determine how far you can give in. How far is too far. In the name of "doing the work of the people". He just kept backing up until he backed himself right out of a job. The sad thing is that he still doesn't get it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost.

"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."

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Tell me, Dickie Lugar... if you support those two things, what is there to compromise or discuss or negotiate? The answer to any change of those listed Constitutional precepts is a resounding "NO!"

I think that's pretty clear.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Dorky_D]

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost.

"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."

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Tell me, Dickie Lugar... if you support those two things, what is there to compromise or discuss or negotiate? The answer to any change of those listed Constitutional precepts is a resounding "NO!"

I think that's pretty clear.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree with that. There is no room for intepretation and compromise. Shall not be infringed is very clear. I would even submit that background checks, FFLs, no mail ordering areas that are OK to carry, permits to carry, NFA stuff, and even laws about who can legally posess a gun are infringements. Some do not bother me as much as others, but they are still infringements.
I think it is pure madness to even consider a treaty that negates our constitution. To me that is the equivalent with me having a mistress. It violates the vows I swore to my wife in front of God and the people that were important to us at the time. I can tell you that if I did have a mistress, our marriage would suffer a huge hit and possibly end it if things were not repared properly. Why would our leader(s) even consider this?

 

[BBill]

Dick Luger just lost his way. In his endless search for the "common ground" and reasonable compromise across the aisle he was repeatedly hornshwaggled by those crafty libs. What the good Senator never learned is that before entering into compromise you must determine how far you can give in. How far is too far. In the name of "doing the work of the people". He just kept backing up until he backed himself right out of a job. The sad thing is that he still doesn't get it.

Start treaty-Dream act-Treaty of the Sea-oh he has lost his way allright. He needs to keep his a$$ in Washington-we don't want or need him here!!

 

[Ted]

Dickie is an old man in dotage that hasn't represented his constituents in many years.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"Today in America, honest, successful, talented, productive, motivated people are being stripped of their freedom and dignity and having their noses rubbed in it. The conflict has been building for over half a century, and once again warning flags are frantically waving, while the instigators rush headlong towards the abyss, and their doom." - John Ross, 'Unintended Consequences'

 

[hooky]

His statement was that he supports 2nd and Indiana law (just as he stated in response to the OP's comments). He also stated at that time that he would not want the laws of Indiana to be forced on the people of New York or California or the laws of those places enforced on Indiana (and I wouldn't want their laws forced on us either)

Yet he had no problem voting for the assault weapon ban, which forced laws upon us that were being pushed by people in other states.

He doesn't support 2A rights.

 

[John Galt]

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost.

"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."

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Tell me, Dickie Lugar... if you support those two things, what is there to compromise or discuss or negotiate? The answer to any change of those listed Constitutional precepts is a resounding "NO!"

I think that's pretty clear.

Blessings,
Bill

^^^THIS^^^

 

[Kmcinnes]

Thats what I hate about politicians on both sides, they do not even take the time to directly respond. It is a prepared statement that is sent out to any and all who are concerned about a topic. They ALL SUCK!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I hesitate to even enter this discussion, but here I go:

I had the opportunity to hear the Senator speak about the 2nd amendment back before the primary. His statement was that he supports 2nd and Indiana law (just as he stated in response to the OP's comments). He also stated at that time that he would not want the laws of Indiana to be forced on the people of New York or California or the laws of those places enforced on Indiana (and I wouldn't want their laws forced on us either).

The Senator has a past of being on a different side of gun related issues than me, but from following the Senator I honestly believe that in his opinion and with his background that he believes his position is for the best. (I disagree with that conclusion). I also believe that he does not have a position on the treaty yet because there is no treaty that has been agreed upon.

Disagree with the Senator all you like, but time and again I have seen him review a situation/legislation as it stands and base his vote on reasoning and logic on the table at that time. Even in the situations where I disagree with the Senator's stance and take the other side he has explained his reasoning and I appreciate that.

What that would mean for how he would vote if this treaty were passed as it is or in a different form...I don't know ...but it's just mean-spirited to say he's crazy.

...please don't hit me...

Try discussing it with him in person. I did in 1998 at a GOP event. He responded with a strong enough insult that had the event not been hosted by a friend I did not wish to embarrass it would have been very, very ugly.

 

[MTC]

When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost.

"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."

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Tell me, Dickie Lugar... if you support those two things, what is there to compromise or discuss or negotiate? The answer to any change of those listed Constitutional precepts is a resounding "NO!"

I think that's pretty clear.

Yes. Yes it is. Crystal -- erm ...

"There you go quoting provisions from those outdated documents. You Americans and your obsession with these anachronistic concepts. Your stubborn refusal to support common sense laws and reasonable restrictions is standing in the way of progress. We will not be able to complete our dream of a worldwide utopia under the benign auspices of the UN with you clinging to your precious guns, and <condescending sneer> what you consider your 'right to keep and bear' them. Get up with the times! We have to worry about what the europeans and certain faculty members might think of us, or conforming to the manufactured consensus of 'world opinion'.

You absolutist. You extremist. You non-compromiser. You, you unreasonable person, you."

 

[VN Vet]

Since Lugar and Obama are close friends as asked Dick to try and talk Barry and Hilary out of signing the ATT. But if he can not I asked him to not ratify the ATT.Obama signs the ATT.

 

[TJJ]

Dick Luger.... Evidence that the longer one stays in DC, the weaker becomes one's spine.

I will be glad to see Dick go.