How Weak They've Made The 2nd Amendment

I recently contacted my Senators about the 2nd Amendment. Subsequently, legislation was defeated in the Senate that would have upheld the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety. Here is the response I got from one Senator. If it matters, he is a Democrat. Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent proposal to require each state to honor concealed weapon permits issued by other States. I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. As for the legislation on concealed weapon permits, I believe that each State should be free to decide whether to recognize another State’s permit. The Federal government shouldn’t force a State with tougher permit requirements--attendance at a gun safety course, for example--to honor permits from States with less stringent requirements. Those decisions are best left to the States. You can be sure that I will keep your thoughts in mind whenever firearms issues are considered by the Senate. I appreciate your letter. Your communications helps me serve you better. Sincerely, Senator Bill Nelson While I can appreciate that Senator Nelson has been hunting since he was a little boy, the right to bear arms is not about hunting, but about personal protection. In his response Senator Nelson failed to explain to me the reasons why the 2nd amendment has been watered down to the point where we can now only protect ourselves in our own states. Because that’s affectively what the Senate authorized via its vote last week. I am quite certain that is NOT the intent of the 2nd amendment, nor was it the intent of our founding fathers. Would Senator Nelson agree with that personally? I don't know, but I contacted him again to ask that question. If he does agree, then why did he vote against the recent legislation introduced in the senate? If he doesn’t agree with it, I’d like to know what his reasoning is. Let's be realistic here. Failure to pass this law does NOT make anyone safer. The criminals are still going to carry guns across state lines. And most likely, in some limited number of instances, what the senators have done, is cause good law-abiding citizens to break the law as they choose between either protecting themselves and their families as they travel, or they relinquish control and responsibility for their safety and well being, and take the risk that no one will accost them. That’s a pretty high cost to pay if they make the wrong choice, wouldn’t you say? There are a lot of nuts out there, I'm sure you'd agree, who would think nothing of robbing, attacking and possibly killing some poor guy, woman or family for a myriad of reasons. So I'm baffled. After all, the role of the government is to protect its citizens. In the absence of that, the government should make it easy for the citizens to protect themselves. What logic can be used to refute those two statements? But that’s what the recent Senate vote says to all of us. Wake up America!