David Potter
1/31/2013 09:12:26 am

Thank you for defending my 2nd amendment rights. I applaud and SUPPORT you

D Potter
Rolla MO

Reply
Marc Perez
1/31/2013 09:48:06 am

The Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the State of Missouri make the right to keep and "BEAR ARMS" very clear without reservation. Surely the Founding Fathers of these documents knew very wel the need for this "RIGHT". No where in the Bill of Rights is such strong language as "Shall Not be Infringed" used to such a specific right. For those who would detract from this right I would ask "What other rights would you give up?" It is wel reognized that this righ tis about more than hunting or mearly possessing a firearm. Where this right has been revoked citizens ahev been held defenseless against their own Government and millions in past century have perished believing "It can't happen here." Truely an armed society is a polite society and an unarmed society are slaves or dead. Never forget the lessons of history. Self defense is a basic human right given to us by our country and by the almighty as well. We are all endowed with these inalienable rights. The Federal Government is given certain enumerated rights under the Constitution, they are exceeding what they are allowed to do. States have certain rights under the10th amendment, it is time they stood up to the Federal Government and it's breach of these rights.

Reply
Charles Ray
3/4/2013 10:53:08 pm

Agreed. Lets not forget "or the free exercise thereof" in the 1st!

Reply
1/31/2013 12:08:53 pm

Thank you Paul, keep up the fight. There are many naïve people out there, who have not a clue about the US Constitution and the people’s rights. I echo your sentiments. The Second Amendment is about the people being able to defend themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. You have a God-given right to be able to defend yourself and your family. And the Founders did envision the people being able to arm themselves with the weapons of today, because they had fought a revolution against a tyrannical government. Where would this country be today if the Founders were not armed to fight the British? The Statists’ goal is for total confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens; the assault weapons ban, registration and amount of rounds are the slippery slope. The registration lets the governments know which law-abiding citizens own guns and how many guns they own making it easier for confiscation. And one bullet can kill. So, if the government implements the ban and the killing continues the government would have a reason for banning more guns and limit the amount of rounds till eventually, the government would call for total confiscation. For those people who think that will not happen need only look to what occurred after Katrina where the government disarmed law-abiding citizens of their guns.

Reply
Fred Berry
1/31/2013 01:49:32 pm

Good letter, Paul.

Reply
Will Wallace
2/1/2013 09:17:11 am

The complaint letter was absolute drivel. Rep. Curtman answered this stupidity with logic, reason, and the correctness of our Constitution. The complainer should be glad that an IQ test is not required for citizenship, he would be denied.

Reply
Gary Barthels
3/4/2013 09:43:04 pm

Thank you Paul,
You are correct ! You are not alone in your Patriotic stance of protecting the Constitution and Missourians right to own and bear arms, I encourage you in this great work.
Thank you again ,
Gary Barthels

Reply
Charles Ray
3/4/2013 10:39:24 pm

Thank you Mr. Curtman.
Here are my feelings on the matter:

Dear American,
Some bullets travel at a speed exceeding 1300 feet per second. Light travels at a speed of 186 Thousand miles a SECOND. A Light Year is light travelling 186 thousand miles a second for every second of every minute of every hour of every week of every month for a solid year. This calculates to 5.8 TRILLION Miles. Our country is nearly 3 Light-years in debt with only 311 Million citizens and only nearly half of those paying taxes. It is my belief that America will fall without drastic cuts in spending NOW.
Given that, The Constitution may be all that we have left of our country, and that is the good news. With all the problems that will come in a collapse do we really want to tamper with our rights? Lets apply the same logic as some have for the 2nd amendment to the 13th amendment. Should only law abiding people be free from slavery? Should one need a permit to be free? How about a mental health check? A tax? A background check? Should one have one cow but no more than 7 to be free, or is the 13th amendment a right? If one took a person into slavery would they not cry out that they have a right? What gives them that right? First would be God and second would be Our Constitution.
Consider that the rights were based in priority from say 1 to 16. Would not the 2nd right have a higher value than the 13th? Maybe they should have equal value? Then wouldn’t the 2nd right have the same importance as not being a slave or in fact a free person? Would those rights be equal or would the 2nd be of higher value? I contend that you cannot have the 13th, or any other, without the 2nd, but both are essential to our Constitution and our Liberty.
Do not allow anyone to tamper with our Liberty. While some argue about how many bullets one can have and that background checks are ok let’s take a hard look at the damage already done to the second amendment. The current ATF 4473 firearms purchase form already limits rights and has done so for some time with the blessings of the NRA. Its not just felonies that disqualify ownership. You should obtain a copy of this form, read it, and think it through. You can get a Felony for throwing a snowball at a snowplow or a stop sign, or copying a VCR tape. There are many so called “crimes” punishable by one year or more as a maximum sentence. Dui’s have that. So does littering in some states. Is this what is meant by “more stringent” and “universal background checks”? Is this the plan for taking our guns? We cant take this chance. Remember how the seat belt law came about?
Topeka Kansas has stopping prosecuting domestic violence, another disqualifying misdemeanor; does that mean they let people beat their spouses? No, it means they are now charged with assault. The reason this stopped was because it was discovered to be standard procedure for lawyers to file restraining orders and claims of abuse to get a bigger divorce settlement. Is this only happening in Topeka?
I know a good man. He is prominent in the community and successful. He is a charitable, hard working, church going senior citizen. He can’t have a firearm because when he was 18 he forged an ID to buy beer and has a felony from it. He hasn’t drank in nearly 40 years. Is it right that he cannot hunt or defend his family? If someone wrote some bad checks in the error of his youth but in many years married, found The Lord, been blessed with children and responsibilities. Should he be denied this right for a lifetime? A lifetime? Should the wife and children be vulnerable and unprotected as well? In the old western movies when a man got out of jail he was given his gun back. He was a free man. Maybe that’s Hollywood but I just don’t see all these qualifiers when I read “shall not be infringed”. Have we become an unforgiving people? A free man should be a free man. Though be it, even I think there should be some kind of waiting period and limitations for truly violent offenders, but then maybe violent offenders should still be in jail. Everybody seems to be ok if someone else’s rights are infringed (taken) so long as it is not theirs, forgetting that if others rights are infringed ours will soon be, as now evident. Are we so self absorbed that we forget those that fought and died for our rights as we let our liberty go with hardly even a question? If we are going to allow more stringent background checks I think the disqualifiers need to really be looked at hard and stick to the barest of limitation putting it back to the original form of a Felony which was a crime against the state like treason, murder, armed robbery, etc. Given mental health checks how can we deny people rights for what they “might” do? Do we really trust credentials of mental health professionals to not be political when we can plainly see that the agendas of t

Reply
Thomas Potter
3/5/2013 07:23:34 am

Mr. Paul Curtman,
Sir, I wish to congratulate you on your excellent response to the letter received from another Missouri citizen, who I think should have paid better attention in his high school civics classes, and I must echo your response as well and extend an 'atta boy to you!.

Checks and balances, the reason for it all. The wise application of that premise is the golden thread sewn into the fabric of our Constitution and it's framework. This branch of government checking the excesses of the other branch of government, and the ultimate check and balance, "We the People", defending the entire structure against the ultimate excess, tyranny! I am also convinced the Framers had this in mind too.

The peoples ability to have arms equal to the government to persuade by reason of potential force to defend against such tyranny is the real reason for the second amendment. It holds all of the amendments, the Constitution, and a government that runs by the rule of law, good law, not unrighteous law, together.

Any casual reference to the communications penned by the Framers reveals exactly this, and nothing less! The reason for "shall not infringe" prevents the obliteration of the last line of defense obligated to the "people" through natural law. Yet the "infringing" thus far has almost destroyed our ability to be the check and balance absolutely necessary for this Republic to survive. The winds of a dishonest and deceitful government that we were warned about is clearly seen and felt, and action to end it must take place. We have but a bit of time left to upright our ship of state, I hope it is not too little too late, and I am also hoping God is willing to answer our SOS here. We have so much to defend, just look at your family and their future for that one. If we neglect so great a challenge, and let this slip through our fingers, the consequences are to horrible to comprehend.

The vast majority of gun owners are honest, hard working, decent people, who have their weapons not to murder people in schools, movie theaters, or any such devilment, but to defend against the evil hearted. Nothing less.

Again, thank you Mr. Paul Curtman.

Tom Potter
Arnold Mo.

Reply
Ken Lockridge
3/5/2013 09:32:36 am

Paul, I thank you for defending my Constitutional rights. You have my complete support. Do not waiver in your efforts.
Ken

Reply
Bill Burt
3/5/2013 10:55:13 am

Paul, when you get letters like that, you know you are doing something right. When someone writes a letter on paper with a Southern Poverty Law Center logo on it, you realize they are either seriously brainwashed, or they are on the opposite side of liberty, since they were responsible for the false information on that report, calling us all terrorists.

We all have a lot on our plates, defending our liberty; now one of the most anti gun women, Caitlin Halligan has been nominated for appeals court, DC circuit. She was the one that wanted to hold gun manufacturers responsible for gun crime. Patriots worked to get, then Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frisk, to filibuster the amendment, that if I remember was by Diane Feinstein. You were probably serving a tour in one of the hell holes at that time, since I believe it was around 2003.

Thanks for all you do in the name of liberty.

Reply
Joseph Cervantes
3/11/2013 08:09:14 am

Poor Alan. He eludes to the fact that he is a Republican. This is why I intend to change my party affiliation by the next election cycle. It has become apparent of late that many in the GOP are willing to bend to the will of the opposition, regardless of the ultimate effect on personal liberties, in the mistaken belief that they will seem righteous for compromising. As a Marine, I too learned that compromise is bad in face of the mission and that silence is consent. What Alan fails to realize is that once we the people allow our government to create more and more restrictions on our God given rights (which are most definitely infringements), then this gives the government the strength to impose even more draconian measures to enforce its will upon us. I am starting to become ashamed of my party and, as I mentioned at the beginning, I intend to withdraw and pledge my support for another, more Constitutionally aligned, party. Semper Fidelis, Marines!

Reply
Dennis Hartmann
8/27/2015 03:14:19 am

Paul,
Thank you for answering back to this guy who seems to not understand our constitution. Please keep up the good work...

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.