Dear Staffer Who Crafted This Email

response to what must have been a flood of emails chastising Senator Wicker for voting to allow S.649-- the "deeply flawed legislation" titled "Safe Schools Act"-- to move forward,

[Page break b/c my first response is not for children's eyes.]

 Eat Shit. 

Here's the full email response from Wicker-- which uncharacteristically I got in less than 24 hours after emailing him. My guess is that I was not alone and that damage control was out in full force. He tries to make his vote seem like a reasoned, principled position. I repeat. Eat shit.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.  I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this important issue.

The language of "Constitutional right" bothers me. It suggests that my right to keep and bear arms derives from the Constitution. It does not. It is an inalienable right. The Constitution merely affirms my right, as a human being, to keep and bear arms-- to protect my other inalienable rights.  

Since coming to Congress in 1995, I have consistently voted to protect our Second Amendment freedoms and will continue to do so.  On April 11, 2013, I supported, along with 15 other Republican Senators, a procedural motion on debating S. 649, the so-called Safe Schools Act.

a) You've been in Congress too long; b) You have made a fundamental error. There is nothing to debate. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of this simple affirmative statement do you not understand?

I believe that S. 649 is deeply flawed legislation, and I oppose the measure. 

Good for you.

However, this vote signals the opening of a robust debate that will put the Senate on record regarding a basic constitutional right.  Far from shrinking from it, I welcome such a discussion and believe it is long overdue. 

Bull shit. You are playing a game. It's not the Senate you want on record. It's particular Senators you want on record. You've shown you are willing to roll the dice on the Second Amendment. You want to discuss 2A? With people who are so shameless they do not morn the loss of their children in private, but rather-- like Cindy Sheehan-- use the lose of their own children to become notorious? If that's the discussion you want to have, excuse me while I vomit. 

The Founding Fathers conceived of the U.S. Senate as the proper forum for public deliberation of this kind.  Law-abiding gun owners should not be put on the defensive when it comes to a fundamental American freedom.

Exactly. You-- as a Representative of the People of the Sovereign State of Mississippi-- should be in the business of protecting our inalienable rights. Not debating and discussing them. S. 649 should have been dead on arrival. 

In addition, contrary to the intent of the bill's authors, bringing this measure to the floor gives us the opportunity to vote to add provisions to strengthen gun rights, such as an amendment to protect veterans from unfair restrictions when purchasing a firearm.  I would filibuster passage of a final bill that contained any increased, gun restrictions or a weapons ban.
 

Dude. Copy edit that. Question. Who is "us?" Would that be the turn-coat "us" who voted to allow this bill to see daylight?

I have worked to protect and preserve the Second Amendment.  Rather than adding new laws and regulatory burdens, Congress should focus on ways to make existing laws more effective.  The goal should be to increase safety and punish criminals – not unfairly hurt law-abiding gun owners.

And so I would have expected you to vote "no"-- don't move this forward. S. 649 is "new law and regulatory burden." Do you not see how inconsistent you are? 

Be assured that as Congress considers gun control legislation I will continue to defend our right to bear arms.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

With best wishes, I am

            Sincerely yours,

            Roger F. Wicker
            U.S. Senate

I'll sleep tight.