Well, I just got his "reply":

Dear Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office to share your views on gun control legislation considered in the Senate. I respect your views and appreciate you communication.

Having carefully reviewed the proposals considered recently by the Senate, I voted for those that I thought would be effective in helping to prevent the kind of heartbreaking loss of life seen in Newtown, Connecticut and in other recent tragic incidents. These amendments would have kept guns out of the hands of both violent criminals as well as the dangerously mentally ill.

For instance, the Grassley amendment I supported would have reauthorized and improved the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and addressed a current gap by strengthening state reporting of individuals who courts have found to be mentally ill. It also would have improved school safety, cracked down on gun trafficking, and targeted so called "straw purchasers" who buy guns that they then convey illegally to those could not pass current background checks. Furthermore, I voted to increase prosecutions of those who knowingly bypass current law to get weapons in the hands of violent criminals. I also supported efforts to get at the underlying problem of a culture of violence prevalent in our society by voting to authorize a study to look at the glorification of gun violence in popular culture as well as risk factors that lead to mass shootings. And I supported amendments that would have helped ensure that those suffering from mental illness get the treatment they need.

It's unfortunate that this legislation did not pass. It was largely bipartisan, and it would have had a real impact on gun violence.

I was not able to support the amendment sponsored by Senators Manchin and Toomey, which would have expanded background checks for most private sales and private transfers of guns. As authors of the amendment acknowledged, it would have done nothing to stop the Newtown tragedy. It also would do little to stop criminals who likely would continue to evade such restrictions. But it did include some restrictions that would criminalize certain transfers of guns between law-abiding Ohioans.

I also opposed an amendment to ban certain types of guns based mostly on the way they look. The evidence is simply not there that new gun bans will reduce gun violence, as we saw from 1994 to 2004 when a similar ban was in place. What these measure will do, however, is infringe on the rights of law-abiding Ohioans who use such guns for self-defense and sport shooting.

Thank you again for reaching out to my office. Until we get at the root causes of violence, no law, no ban, and no background check will ensure the safety and security of our children and our communities. Please keep in touch and I hope you will continue to share your views on this issue and any other in the future.

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

My response:
Senator Portman:

I'm not buying your weak tea excuses.

I appreciate your response. But I'd have appreciated the bill at least being allowed on the floor for a vote. Your support, or lack thereof, of certain issues is one thing. Your complicity in preventing that vote is unacceptable.

Think of it this way: Should you choose to run for re-election in the next cycle, would you think it fair if We The People of Ohio filibustered your inclusion on the ballot?

You followed the money, sir. Yes, this money.

Shame on you.

BTW, I'm referring to the video further down the HuffPost page. mad