The Second Amendment says that the security of a free state depends upon the right of "the people" and "well-organized militia" - two overlapping concepts - to bear arms; and "bear arms" means "take up arms against the government".
Jefferson said there is liberty when the government fears the people. And for good reason; governments killed 290 million people in the 20th century. We cannot allow governments to even keep track of who owns which weapons; certainly not at the federal level, and although state gun legislation has been put forth as an alternative, the 2nd Amendment should be construed to mean that the federal government must intervene when the states infringe on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
While some leaders say "just give the people a[n up-or-down] vote", I believe that the 2nd Amendment requires the federal government (and the states, as a condition of remaining part of the union) to refrain from infringing on these rights. I myself am pro-choice, but I regard the right of human adults to efficient and effective self-defense as something with which governments have no authority to interact.
The people are free to organize into militias, so that (1) standing government armies which would interfere with the execution of just law cannot do so nor oppress the people, (2) foreign militias - including foreign and international armies, and including possible host-country conspiracy to allow such armies to invade - can be repelled and defeated, and (3) foreign armies can be repelled and defeated, without requiring the maintenance of standing armies, whose very existence risks popular oppression.
People need AR-15s to defend themselves against conquering armies.
Ask yourself: How active could the U.N. become inside the U.S.? How much approval from international agencies do we need to conduct warfare? On top of training foreign militants abroad, is America becoming a training base for foreign militants and armies?
Ask yourself, Why on Earth would something called "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" exist?
I do not own any potential weapon more deadly than a common steak knife (incidentally, "assault weapons" only become "assault" - and also, indeed, "weapons" - when they cease to be tools in defending against violence, and instead become "tools" that perpetuate violence), so I will not be directly affected by any of these potential new laws.
However, I believe that the notion that information-hoarding, admittedly "monopoly-on-legitimate-violence"-supporting governments, should track our capacities to defend ourselves and one another against it, is diametrically opposed to what this country was founded upon.
Additionally, the Interstate Commerce Clause should be construed to require federal intervention to prevent state bans on interstate sales of weapons. Connecticut and other states can ban the manufacture of weaponry if they please, but states may not interfere with purchases and sales.
I do not want you to vote against any new proposed gun control legislation; I would like you to help other senators block votes regarding such legislation. These inalienable rights should not suffer the risks associated with votes nor debates.
"Gun control" for the "safety" of Americans means less freedom from tyranny and violence for women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, political radicals, and non-violent drug offenders.
The federal government has been characterized in legal code as "foreign" to the states. Please help Senator Johnson defend the people of Wisconsin against the attacks and pillaging of the foreign federal army, and from potential joint popular attacks by it and its allies abroad, Statist and terrorist alike.
Here is "Senator Baldwin"'s automated response:
United States Senator