Saturday, January 5, 2013

My Congressman Responds

My US Representative is a pretty solid conservative, Bill Posey (R).  I've written him on many issues before, and the office always responds with a position statement.   The only times I've written, his response has been what I'd wanted.  Before the session started, I wrote about the coming gun ban bills and received a response that he's on our side.  I'm taking the liberty of copying some extracts of it here because I think it's pretty reasonable.

Dear <name redacted>

Thank you for contacting me in the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut to express your concern about proposals that would restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. I share your concerns.

As a father and a grandfather, my heart goes out to the parents and families of these children, and the families of the teachers and school employees whose lives were so tragically cut short. 
Clearly, the individual who perpetrated this terrible act (Adam Lanza) was mentally disturbed, and news sources thus far indicated that intervention was seriously lacking. The specifics of any mental or developmental disability from which he suffered must be fully understood and investigated. ....

Also, some media reports have indicated that he was on psychotropic drugs. We need to understand what drug or drugs he was on and what role, if any, these drugs may have played in his mental state and aggression. Some reports indicate that his mother was in the process of having him committed to a mental institution. Is this true? And, if so, what role may this have played? ...

Additionally, media reports indicated that Lanza spent a considerable amount of time playing violent first-person shooter video games. What role if any did this play particularly when combined with his mental instability, and possibly being on psychotropic prescription drugs? You may recall that serious mental problems and addiction to violent video games were also traits that investigators uncovered when investigating the murders carried out by James Holmes at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

A Washington Post poll following this tragedy reports that a majority of Americans believe that this incident reflects a larger problem in American society.  Some have suggested that the culture of violence is poisoning the minds of children and these games are desensitizing children to the reality of violence. The Parents Television Council reports that the average child graduates from elementary school having seen 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 acts of violence on television. By age 18, the number of murders is up to 40,000. Can this level of exposure be a factor in already troubled youths committing aggressive acts, including murders?


Many long time advocates of restricting the Second Amendment began calling for more gun control in the immediate aftermath of the shootings.  However, one must first consider that the state in which this took place, Connecticut, already has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and those laws did not prevent this unthinkable act.  Initial reports indicate that the firearms belonged to the shooter's mother, who herself was a victim of Lanza.  We need that part of the investigation to be completed so we know for certain whether the firearms belonged to Ms. Lanza.  If they do - and were in compliance with current law - then we need to recognize that broad-base firearms laws are not likely to be effective in preventing gun violence in the future.



Bill Posey
Member of Congress

That last sentence is a bit softer than I'd like, but it could be to make sure that any anti-gun voters (there must be some) think he's not automatically dismissing the new laws. 


  1. At least it was a response tailored to appeal to intelligence but I hope he wasn't insinuating we should ban violent video games and thus scuttle our first amendment rights. It worries me when people suggest that video games are responsible for violence when in fact it takes only cursory logic and basic facts to tell you that they aren’t. Trading one right for another is not a path to a freer society.

    1. Yeah, I hope that's not his point. He has been good on defending rights, but obviously when the Evil party had the House majority, he got rolled over all the time.

      Like a few months ago when they had the vote to de-fund ObamaCare in the House, he said something like, "Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to vote against this, but we've done these votes 30 times already and the Senate refuses to hear them. Why should we think they'll take our vote the 31st time?"

  2. When the progressive fools (but I repeat myself) start to talk about the "ready availability of firearms", perhaps we should remind them that they _themselves_ make the situation worse when they publish the location of those very firearms for any thief or psycho who wishes to acquire them, as was done by the Journal News in New York.

  3. Yada Yada Yada.....yes...he talks the talk, in typical political mealy mouthed mushspeak. Question is does he walk the walk. What
    does his voting record say....because in reality what a polished turd in a suit says is irrelevant. All that matters is what they do.

    1. His record is quite good, if not perfect. Every single issue I've checked on he has voted the right side.

      I haven't checked all of those "formality votes" where everyone knows the outcome and they just do it to look good.

      Disclaimer: not a spokesman, never worked for, never campaigned for, just voted for.