I regularly get e-mails from NH Senator Kelly Ayotte,
which unlike many politicians who don't bother, I understand that's a good thing; not that I voted for her.
The latest e-mail I received presents her case with regards to her recent NO vote over extended gun control and background checks. Apparently anti-gun groups are hitting her back hard, with smear campaigns and television ads.
Where I often disagree with her, I stand with her on this issue as she correctly emphasizes the laws are already in place, need to be enforced and we definitely don't need new one's. Just like what happened after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the recent events at Sandy Hook CT, Aurora CO. has had a frantic level of media frenzy and public reaction that asks for a "knee-jerk" reaction for laws that will forever ban such violence.
The result and consequences of Sept. 11, 2001 was the Patriot Act that gave the terrorists a victory in my opinion, eroding the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution significantly. Again, the laws were already in place for such a violent act and what the Patriot Act did was pour salt in the wounds of Americans. We the People didn't deserve to be punished as a result of fanatics by increased government surveillance,;draconian TSA agents and long lines at the airports that single out obviously harmless people and installation of pornographic body scanners. We didn't need to open our own Russian style gulag at Guantanamo Bay Cuba to house terrorists, though where to put them does remain a concern, but I think we had alternatives and I know torture was never a part of our American culture until then.
What Senator Kelly Ayotte has done is to stand up and act in a reasonable and responsible manner to yet more attempts to infringe upon our freedoms and Constitutional rights. To me this is a good thing and for once she has my support.
Having said that her e-mail does point out some weaknesses/perspectives that I find troubling and perplexing about her, which highlights why I didn't vote for her.
Senator Ayotte said in the e-mail: "From my experience working with police chiefs, detectives and prosecutors, I know how important it is to have laws that work - and I know how important it is to enforce the laws we have on the books."
She goes on to say, and I mostly agree: "There are no easy answers. Even if the proposed expansion of background checks had been in place, it wouldn't have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy - where the perpetrator obtained the firearms he used by killing his own mother, who owned them lawfully."
On the latter... The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook murders was not ruled mentally ill, nor was it illegal for him to own guns. In other violent events this may not be as true, but in Sandy Hook it was. There was little it appears that could have been done, legally or otherwise to prevent that tragedy. New laws, those including the ones you voted against, essentially intend to disarm Americans, in essence, anyone making less than $200,000 a year. It's the Marihuana Tax Act rekindled, as the Personal Protection/2ND Amendment Tax Act of 2013.
My how history seems to repeat itself!
On the former, I'd say to Senator Ayotte, it's all fine and good that you have such a good rapport with law enforcement, and an appreciation for how laws work, but do you really believe that any and every law passed is forever true and enforceable? Shall we go back to arresting people who spit in the street as disgusting as it is? Should we arrest people for fornication and adultery? Should we arrest women who wear bikini's or expose their belly buttons or too much leg?
And naturally, where I'm going with this is, are laws prohibiting cannabis use by adults really protecting the public when the majority of violent crimes are committed by non-cannabis users and straight up straight people who don't even use drugs, except for maybe alcohol - the latter being more a contributing factor in many domestic violence crimes?
Don't you think it's time you develop a good rapport with the PEOPLE too?
When prior to your election a Viet Nam Vet spoke with you and asked you how you felt about medical cannabis you acted like he was from Mars. You behave as if cannabis prohibition solves all the country's problems and makes us safe - it doesn't.
Any law in this country except those of a capital nature need constant evaluation. Things change, people change, times change. What was wrong 75 years ago, or 35 years ago may not be a bad thing today.
The US Constitution grants Americans Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Granted, that includes the 2ND Amendment. But it also challenges you to appreciate that in 75 years no one has been harmed by cannabis except where the laws on the books and those shoved down our throats by a President Nixon has caused enormous harm to society.
I would ask you to respect the Constitution but I would also ask you to think outside the box. I would ask you to think back to the question that Viet Nam Vet asked you. Laws are not made in B&W!
The latest e-mail I received presents her case with regards to her recent NO vote over extended gun control and background checks. Apparently anti-gun groups are hitting her back hard, with smear campaigns and television ads.
Where I often disagree with her, I stand with her on this issue as she correctly emphasizes the laws are already in place, need to be enforced and we definitely don't need new one's. Just like what happened after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the recent events at Sandy Hook CT, Aurora CO. has had a frantic level of media frenzy and public reaction that asks for a "knee-jerk" reaction for laws that will forever ban such violence.
The result and consequences of Sept. 11, 2001 was the Patriot Act that gave the terrorists a victory in my opinion, eroding the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution significantly. Again, the laws were already in place for such a violent act and what the Patriot Act did was pour salt in the wounds of Americans. We the People didn't deserve to be punished as a result of fanatics by increased government surveillance,;draconian TSA agents and long lines at the airports that single out obviously harmless people and installation of pornographic body scanners. We didn't need to open our own Russian style gulag at Guantanamo Bay Cuba to house terrorists, though where to put them does remain a concern, but I think we had alternatives and I know torture was never a part of our American culture until then.
What Senator Kelly Ayotte has done is to stand up and act in a reasonable and responsible manner to yet more attempts to infringe upon our freedoms and Constitutional rights. To me this is a good thing and for once she has my support.
Having said that her e-mail does point out some weaknesses/perspectives that I find troubling and perplexing about her, which highlights why I didn't vote for her.
Senator Ayotte said in the e-mail: "From my experience working with police chiefs, detectives and prosecutors, I know how important it is to have laws that work - and I know how important it is to enforce the laws we have on the books."
She goes on to say, and I mostly agree: "There are no easy answers. Even if the proposed expansion of background checks had been in place, it wouldn't have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy - where the perpetrator obtained the firearms he used by killing his own mother, who owned them lawfully."
On the latter... The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook murders was not ruled mentally ill, nor was it illegal for him to own guns. In other violent events this may not be as true, but in Sandy Hook it was. There was little it appears that could have been done, legally or otherwise to prevent that tragedy. New laws, those including the ones you voted against, essentially intend to disarm Americans, in essence, anyone making less than $200,000 a year. It's the Marihuana Tax Act rekindled, as the Personal Protection/2ND Amendment Tax Act of 2013.
My how history seems to repeat itself!
On the former, I'd say to Senator Ayotte, it's all fine and good that you have such a good rapport with law enforcement, and an appreciation for how laws work, but do you really believe that any and every law passed is forever true and enforceable? Shall we go back to arresting people who spit in the street as disgusting as it is? Should we arrest people for fornication and adultery? Should we arrest women who wear bikini's or expose their belly buttons or too much leg?
And naturally, where I'm going with this is, are laws prohibiting cannabis use by adults really protecting the public when the majority of violent crimes are committed by non-cannabis users and straight up straight people who don't even use drugs, except for maybe alcohol - the latter being more a contributing factor in many domestic violence crimes?
Don't you think it's time you develop a good rapport with the PEOPLE too?
When prior to your election a Viet Nam Vet spoke with you and asked you how you felt about medical cannabis you acted like he was from Mars. You behave as if cannabis prohibition solves all the country's problems and makes us safe - it doesn't.
Any law in this country except those of a capital nature need constant evaluation. Things change, people change, times change. What was wrong 75 years ago, or 35 years ago may not be a bad thing today.
The US Constitution grants Americans Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Granted, that includes the 2ND Amendment. But it also challenges you to appreciate that in 75 years no one has been harmed by cannabis except where the laws on the books and those shoved down our throats by a President Nixon has caused enormous harm to society.
I would ask you to respect the Constitution but I would also ask you to think outside the box. I would ask you to think back to the question that Viet Nam Vet asked you. Laws are not made in B&W!
No comments:
Post a Comment