Troubling Response From Senator Warner

Like most Americans who still believe in the value of the Constitution, I have been writing my representatives about the current push towards gutting the 2nd Amendment. I received a form letter response from Virginia Senator Warner. It's the same letter he's sending everybody, it's pretty generic, and true to the Senator's form, non-committal. I am pleased that he did not use those leftist terms of misdirection; "assault weapon ban" or "high capacity magazine." His reply does however contain a very troubling line. As politicians frequently do, he prefaces it with a claim of being pro-2A.

"I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I own firearms and I have an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits.  It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to have a serious discussion on how to best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable."

Hold on just a minute Senator, perhaps you could elaborate on the "many" rights that you feel "are not without limits." We already know Senator Warner supports limits on the 1st Amendment as it pertains to the freedom of religion. Does this "serious discussion" he proposes include limits to other parts of the Bill of Rights as well? Maybe we could place limits of the 4th Amendment in order to make sure the government finds all those guns folks have hidden in their homes? Does he also support limits on the 5th and 6th Amendments to speed up the prosecution of those unwilling to obey unconstitutional gun ban laws? Perhaps limiting the application of the 8th Amendment might make it easier to set up camps in which to house those pesky patriots?

Even when a politician tries to camouflage his agenda, his words often belie his true feelings. Senator Warner has shown he has forgotten, or perhaps never believed, the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nowhere does the oath say "support and defend the Constitution with limits."

Update, January 15: Contrast this with Congresman Wittman's response here.