My letter to Congress

Congressman __________,

Regarding any possible new firearms laws, restrictions or bans – Vote No!

It is a proven fact that restrictive gun control laws and bans do not work – look at Chicago with the highest murder rate in the country, despite the fact that they have the strictest guns laws in the country.

More gun laws and bans will not stop crime, murder or mass killings like the one in Sandy Hook. All new laws, restrictions and bans would do is make current law-a-biding citizens like you and I into criminals and cause crime and murder rates to go up. That is a proven fact. For example look at what happened in Australia after implementing their ill-informed “assault weapons” ban – crime and murder rates saw a sharp and steady increase….

The media blame the AR-15 rifle for what happened at Sandy Hook while seemingly forgetting that it was a man pulling the trigger. Why are they so focused on the rifle? It seems that they (the media) want us to believe that the rifle walked into the school of its own ability and started firing.

If you watched the news coverage during and after the Sandy Hook murders closely, you’ll remember that the AR-15 rifle was reported as being found in the murders car for the first several days after the shooting then the media story suddenly changed putting the rifle inside the school and as the main weapon used by the shooter.

Don’t you find that strange? I’m not sure that the rifle was even used… As you know the media can and often does have its own agenda…

Anyway, he or any other crazy murderer intent on killing a room full of people or children could just as easily have used a pump-action shotgun loaded with 00-buckshot. Or a .38 caliber revolver with two or three speed loaders for quickly reloading the revolver.

Even if there was a way to magically make every one of the estimated 300,000,000 firearms that are in the United States disappear (there isn’t) someone intent on doing something so dreadful as murdering someone or even a room full children (or adults) will find a way to do it.

Remember Timothy James “Tim” McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 killing 168 people. These crazies will find a way to kill and the method that they choose could be even more devastation in the number of lives lost than if they had used a gun.

But I’m sure that you already know all of this – anyway, I’ve talked to a lot of folks in our district and they have all said that they are against any new gun laws, restrictions or bans.

To vote yes for any new gun laws, restrictions or bans would be committing political suicide in this district come re-election time.

Say no to any and all new gun laws, restrictions or bans of any type. Vote No and I’ll press the button beside your name in the voting booth come next election. Thanks.

About M.D. Creekmore

M.D. Creekmore is the owner and editor of He is the author of four prepper related books and is regarded as one of the nations top survival and emergency preparedness experts. Read more about him here.


  1. georgeislearning says:

    copied and will send

  2. I wrote something similar.
    I added that I would not be sending my children into a target rich environment any longer. I also added that I know that times have changed since his daughter was allowed to attend the same school in safety and peace.
    I congratulated him on allowing our schools to become killing fields and if he didn’t do anything about it, I was going to make it my lifes work to see him out of office and held criminally accountable. I sent the same to the School Administration and the Sheriff.

    Gun control isn’t about guns. It is about control. Our children and educators need to be safe RIGHT NOW and the message is lost.

    My Congressman is a douchebag and will follow the leader. He spent 30,000 dollars to change the carpet and curtains in his office when he moved in. While he is sitting on his fat ass and chewing “whatever” with his buddies, our kids are the next target for a mouth breathing lunatic. I won’t have it.

  3. Stealth Spaniel says:

    Well, the airhead elite that is posing this new set of gun laws is a Senator that I have NEVER voted for-Feinstein. Of course this woman has guns in HER house, and has secret service detail for ultimate, up-to-the-minute protection, so why should she worry??
    I did send this “We The People” bleeding heart (she is worth at least $78 million) my version of M.D.’s letter. I explained that all gun laws do is turn schools into killing fields. When I went to school in California, people had morality, stars only worried about their publicity and who their next lover was, and no one even thought of taking a gun and killing someone. Now, we are too sophisticated for religion, stars all want to be good looking dictators who rule the world, and the middle class has disappeared into gangster land. People-at least the everyday, normal people-still use guns for self protection. When I lived up in the Sierra’s, the only thing a mountain lion respected was my gun. There was no public trough funded diplomatic negotiation and high tea with any bear, bobcat, snake, etc. What Mother Nature does respect is straight up “I can kill you or you can leave”. Nothing complicated about it. I find that people respond in a similar manner when needed.
    The problem with the Washington Elite that the welfare class keeps re-electing is that these people live in a bubble. They never pay their own bills, the money they need is unending, their security is paid for,every word they utter is hung on and they are photographed ad nauseum, they travel when they want where they want: it is essentially a state of perpetual adolescence.I hope that we can shove this bill where it never shines.

  4. RattleHawk says:

    I am new to your blog. I am NC and sent emails to Sen. Burr and Sen Hagan. Getting emails ready for the members of the house also. I let them know that with a 2 second Google search you can find stories about mass shootings and school shootings in Germany, Finland, Brazil, Norway, (the worst in the history of the world), all of which are relatively recent, and all took place in countries with draconian firearms regulations.

    Violence and murder happen no matter where you are. The only difference between us and those countries, is we can still defend ourselves against it. I believe in the second amendment, and why it was created, however I no longer think the gun discussion is about the 2A, it is about self defense, plain and simple.

  5. MountainSurvivor says:

    The letter packs the right punch. I’ve got to send it off.

  6. Copied and have already sent!
    I feel for the parents of the murdered children but why must we always blame the gun? A walking stick is just a walking stick unless you beat someone to death with it! So then it stands to reason we would outlaw all the walking sticks!

    • Kevin,

      They don’t care about protecting anyone or saving the lives of children or preventing crime all they care about is using the tragedy to further their own sick, evil, twisted agenda to control the world and everything in it.

      But we know how it ends – WE WIN … and God will remove all evil from the earth (Revelation 16:16; 20:1-3, 7-10) praise the Lord.

  7. MD…..My thoughts of protest…..please improve/add …..use it if you like. short an sweet, I think is good.

    As an American, not an employee of the United States Government, I petition to protest any additional laws that infringe on my rights, property and income under the US Constitution that may advance growth to the government that is mis-interpreted to included and advance the “better of the whole” as we hear.

    That will only create a collapse to the “whole” as the payers will cease to exist.

    Any bans on products the people purchase will only produce government control that would most likely cause a failure in additional employment and revenue. This is not reasonable!

    At this time we oppose any gun bans until nation wide proof, guns are the issue.

    I need exact proof a gun is a problem, in writing, not a TV blip….

    (so this is my start…..add… take away ….lets get their attention…all help me, ….or trash it! I think short an sweet is more readable……!)

  8. Emailed both of my senators and my representative. We’ll see what they have to say. =)

    • I emailed mine on December 20. I got back a canned email saying “Thanks for writing”. I haven’t hear a thing since. And won’t.

  9. I have written to both State and Government officials several times. My last note contained and opening three line paragraph stating existing laws need to be enforeced and why would my Government want to disarm it;s honest citizens. I then copied in the letter from the Marine, Joshua Boston, with just the simple words, “I will stand with Joshua if the time comes.”. I don’t know if any of this is effective. The anti-gunners aren’t going to listen and I doubt from the form letters I usually get that out legislators or their staff even read what is sent at least past the subject line. Still I believe it is necessary to say something and try, to never give in or give up.

  10. cooolwoods says:

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

    Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

    Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

    Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
    1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

    The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

    The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

    Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
    One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

    Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
    Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

    Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… Another precedent.

    Also, any business or agency advocating and assisting UN’s Agenda 21 is committing treason – by altering our form of government by other then amendment. Anything done by those serving in any branch of our government that alters our type of government by other then amendment is illegal also. That covers the Patriot Act, the NDAA, all this warrant less spying, tracking, etc going on,; and a mulitude of other crimes both civil and criminal.

    maybe our reps might want to chew on this for awhile
    stay safe

  11. Hehe don’t want to go to the gulag this week so I will leave my rhetoric out. Let’s just say that I have taken a binding pledge that I will protect the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

  12. Desert Fox says:

    Although this letter depicts good points…it’s too long! and why at the end of it you are promising an exchange for your vote? Thanks anyway.

Before commenting, please read my Comments Policy - thanks!