Mr. Woodall (and staff):
Thank you for reaching out to your constituents on this hot topic issue. I genuinely appreciate your investing the effort, time and cost to do this. This survey coupled with your ‘town halls’ and calls is a welcome departure from the behavior of many in DC.
Please permit me a few remarks about the survey:
· I find it admirable that you and your staff are taking the empirical pulse of your constituents.
· At the same time I urge you to recall we are not a democracy, we are a representative constitutional republic, and a poll’s results, including my own heart-felt opinion shall not add up to new Federal policy or law if those would infringe or erode our Rights and/or violate the Constitution.
· I implore and must trust you to hold close the language and intent of the Constitution, which IS the law of our land—and fight all attempts to further regulate and infringe ANY of our liberties, including those explicitly preserved in the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s the ‘net’ of my views, my opinions on the current “gun law” debate:
· We have a crime and criminal problem, not a gun problem – address the root causes, not the easy headlines and the memes. More and more restrictive Federal gun laws are not the answer to the problem, unless the problem is perceived to be a free state and people who currently can defend themselves from criminals and enemies— foreign and domestic.
· We are endowed by our Creator with the right of self-defense, and the Federal government SHALL NOT infringe our right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves and loved ones from criminals or tyrants – foreign and domestic.
· Further restricting or infringing the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms is not only illegal and immoral, it is demonstrably INEFFECTIVE as a tactic to reduce gun crimes.
· Politicians who oppose the 2nd Amendment are using a national tragedy to push their agenda. But this ‘debate’ isn’t really about the 2nd Amendment or “gun violence.” The pursuit of power and control, and the deliberate erosion of individual liberty are driving this debate, not a better safer society: i.e. politics and power are the drivers. The “tragedy” simply helps the crisis not go to waste, and those using ‘tragedy tactics’ are in my opinion bald-faced, unapologetic political opportunists. Of course they are using a national tragedy to advance a regulatory agenda that advantages their overall agenda.
Call to action?
· Continue to be a fact-based, rational and Constitution-supporting Representative. Persist and persevere as an advocate for our Constitutional Republic, while resisting ALL efforts to dilute the rule of law as stipulated in our Constitution. Do so in this specific context by acknowledging the history and intent of the 2nd Amendment AS WRITTEN, and fight to make certain “SHALL NOT be infringed” is obeyed and executed by ALL in our Federal government.
-------------------
What follows is a comprehensive, point –by-point response to each of the choices offered in your survey, in order of their presentation.
Each of the choices you offered in your survey has merit, yet no one choice ‘nailed’ it for me. Collectively aspects of each choice add up to a portion of “my views.” Due to the importance and urgency of this issue, I felt compelled to respond in-depth. Please read the remarks that follow as if spoken in polite yet concerned tone of voice.
1. Regarding “Gun laws” overall -- “GUN LAWS” will not directly affect the root cause(s) of the criminal violence. We have a crime and criminal problem, the root cause of which is not effectively or honestly addressed by infringing the rights of law-abiding citizens. To re-state this, we have a crime and criminal problem, NOT a gun or gun control problem. I implore you and others to address the real issues, and STOP infringing the rights of citizens.
a. Regarding those rights--
i. Those rights being self-defense and
1. an individual/community defense against potential tyranny by enemies foreign and domestic
ii. To deny we live in a dangerous, violent world is to be a fool, a liar and a Naif.
iii. We have the right of self-defense from said violence and dangers in this world
iv. When faced with the reality of an imminent threat, and seconds count, our government-authorized and -empowered Law Enforcement guardians are minutes away – TOO LATE to deter, stop or eliminate the threat(s) to the well-being and lives of our selves and loved ones.
v. Therefore I believe that to NOT have and carry a firearm(s) is to choose to be defenseless
1. We HAVE the liberty to choose to live our lives defended by our own firearms or not, and BY LAW, that liberty SHALL NOT be infringed.
2. The Federal government specifically DOES NOT have the right to legislate or regulate me ‘defenseless.’
3. Defenseless above applies to both crime and tyranny, but I repeat myself.
b. “Gun violence” is NOT widespread, but rather is geographically concentrated.
i. Readily available data from the CDC (and the FBI) demonstrate that the NATION fundamentally does not have a widespread “gun violence” problem, and neither does it have an “assault rifle” homicide problem. The data demonstrate our larger CITIES have a handgun homicide problem, and especially so for ages 10-19.
ii. To wit: The CITY of Atlanta has a gun homicide rate (>23) more than FIVE TIMES higher than Gwinnett County (<4) overall, and even Gwinnett County has localized crime ‘hotspots.’ The example in our particular data are repeated across the nation’s larger Metros – meaning that the larger CITIES have a handgun homicide/violence problem, NOT the commuting suburbs, and empirically NOT in the far broader “fly-over” countryside.
1. Anecdotally and in the general Media—the ‘worst areas’ [for general ‘drive-bys’ and home invasions as well as the tragic mass shootings like Fort Hood and schools] — are already “Gun Free Zones.”
a. Passing new ‘WE REALLY MEAN IT’ laws that further restrict, regulate and disarm the at-risk, law-abiding citizenry WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE S.
2. Proposed or recently-enacted legislation and regulation ignore the ‘elephant in the room’ of the WHO, WHERE and HOW of actual ‘gun violence’ and does little or nothing to recognize and address cultural/moral, socio-economic, educational, mental health and lack-of-enforcement causes of and contributors to “the problem.”
a. To declare we must “DO SOMETHING” is farcical, pointless and ineffective—and smacks LOUDLY of cheap political theater.
3. The relevant CITY data are found here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm?s_cid=mm6018a1_w
a. Synopsis/ extract below:
|
Location |
Gun Homicide Rate - All ages |
Gun Homicide Rate Ages 10-19 |
|
City of New Orleans, Louisiana |
62.1 |
106 |
|
City of Detroit, Michigan |
35.9 |
31.7 |
|
City of Baltimore, Maryland |
29.7 |
45.8 |
|
City of Oakland, California |
26.6 |
47.7 |
|
City of Newark, New Jersey |
25.4 |
47.4 |
|
City of St. Louis, Missouri |
24.1 |
50.2 |
|
City of Miami, Florida |
23.7 |
42 |
|
City of Richmond, Virginia |
23.1 |
43.1 |
|
City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
20 |
30.1 |
|
City of Washington, District of Columbia |
19 |
32.5 |
|
City of Memphis, Tennessee |
18.4 |
20.4 |
|
City of Cleveland, Ohio |
17.4 |
---¶ |
|
City of Atlanta, Georgia |
17.2 |
23.4 |
|
City of Buffalo, New York |
16.5 |
30.8 |
|
City of Cincinnati, Ohio |
15.9 |
31.1 |
|
City of Kansas City, Missouri |
14.5 |
22 |
|
City of Las Vegas, Nevada |
13.5 |
18.6 |
|
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin |
13.5 |
22.5 |
|
City of Jacksonville, Florida |
13.2 |
15.1 |
|
City of Houston, Texas |
12.9 |
16.1 |
|
City of Indianapolis, Indiana** |
12.6 |
12.2 |
|
City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
12.5 |
30.3 |
|
City of Chicago, Illinois |
11.6 |
20 |
|
City of Sacramento, California |
11.1 |
20.6 |
|
City of Portsmouth, Virginia |
11.1 |
---¶ |
|
City of Phoenix, Arizona |
10.6 |
12.5 |
2. Too many gun laws already: Indeed, America has too many INEFFECTIVE gun ownership and permitting/permission laws already. Rather than passing new restrictions, PARTICULARLY FEDERAL REGULATIONS that a priori violate and infringe the rights recognized in the 2nd Amendment LIMITING the power of the Federal government, we should be repealing current restrictions and restoring freedom.
a. Arguably there already are ‘so many’ [vague and over-reaching] gun laws that one could infer the legislative and regulatory intent is to make it simple to find any gun owner to be a chargeable ‘law breaker,’ at the convenience and whim of OUR government. Reference the man-in-the-news facing a stiffer sentence for possessing newly-illegal “high-capacity” magazines than a murderer in the same state.
b. To understand my concern, please read a quote from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged:
i. “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
ii. You and the others in DC are supposed to be my representatives, NOT my over-seers or nannies, and decidedly NOT in charge of my life or what’s best for me, at the DIRECT expense of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. (NB: I believe you are one of the few ‘good guys’)
iii. The Bill of Rights, quite CLEARLY in the actual historical record, was demanded and crafted in order to more explicitly LIMIT the powers of government, especially the FEDERAL government. ALL TEN were designed to explicitly protect our liberty, place bounds on the Federal government, AND enable the populace, BY LAW—both Natural and Constitutional Law—to resist and stop tyranny … from our own government if need be.
3. “America has too many guns. I support anything the federal (my emphasis) government can do to restrict gun ownership and gun use.” COMPLETE disagreement:
a. “Too many??? Says who?” is my first objection. This smacks of “at some point you’ve made enough money.” It is *NOT* the role of the FEDERAL government to say I own too many guns, chairs, cars, iTunes titles or boxes of Cheerios. PERIOD. The Federal Government is acting as a group of PEOPLE who increasingly believe THEY have the right, duty and authority to tell ‘us’ how to live. The FEDERAL government does NOT have the duty to define OUR pursuit or definition of happiness. This must not be about the FEDs declaring that what we ‘need’ is less than what we want.
b. At this point in the Republic’s course, just about the LAST institution I trust with my liberty and my rights is the Federal government. Well, sadly I trust the ‘Press’ less, but they cannot take away my rights at the point of a gun.
4. There is a place for some gun laws: Agreed, just like there is a place for some laws regulating free speech. All my rights have limits – the tip of your nose so to speak. I have almost NO faith that the Federal government will do more than demagogue this issue and further deliberately erode my rights and pull more power into a central government.
5. … tragedy is driving this debate: NO, the pursuit of power and control, and the deliberate erosion of individual liberty and state’s rights is driving this debate: i.e. politics and power are the drivers. This is simply an instance of “never let a crisis go to waste.” IF it were a GENUINE debate, we would be addressing the root causes and the lack of effectiveness/enforcement of existing laws. We would also have our figurative hand on the Constitution while having this ‘debate.’ This is all posturing for power and control, not a better society.
6. I want to do more to protect our children, but I don’t think new gun laws will help. Criminals who commit these crimes don’t care about the law. I support focusing on our mental health system, our justice system, violence in the media, and other opportunities to stop crimes before they happen. Let’s take these one at a time.
a. Protect our children. Who can be against protecting children? Please, spare me the histrionics and the posturing. In the real world we don’t protect our President, our banks and Brink’s trucks with “gun free zone” signs. We protect them IN FACT with a real security perimeter and ARMED guards. Put up or shut up. I despise it when politicians accuse responsible, law-abiding gun owners of putting children at risk, and then HIDE behind the security of armed guards. They disgust me.
b. Criminals who commit these crimes don’t care about the law. Ya think? There’s a blinding flash of the obvious. OBEYING gun laws CAN cause law-abiding citizens to be LESS secure.
c. focusing on our mental health system, our justice system, violence in the media, and other opportunities. Those are all good at face value. The gaps lie in political will and a practical method to execute any ‘new’ laws aimed at mental health; cultural, family and socio-economic factors; our revolving door ‘justice’ system and our blind eye towards recidivism; violence in the media is a bit of a “feel good” red herring to me (I grew up driving to my semi-rural NY high school with guns in the trunk and in the window racks of pickup trucks—and I loved a good shoot-em-up movie);
d. stop crimes before they happen – OK, you have me here.
i. How about considering REAL enforcement where the majority of the gun crimes occur today?
ii. Guns and ammunition are expensive. Follow the money.
iii. I can only conclude we are not really serious about stopping the PEOPLE who do/would/might commit gun crimes—against children (and others of course). It must not be politically expedient to actually go after the majority of (actual/ prior/ potential) perpetrators, but rather IS politically advantageous to “do something” to reduce the rights of those who are extraordinarily UNlikely to commit gun crimes – people like me and my family.
7. Politicians who have always opposed the 2nd Amendment are using a national tragedy to push their anti-Second Amendment agenda. I picked this one.
a. At face value, this is an anti-Second Amendment agenda. But I think it prudent to ask WHY ‘they’ are against the second amendment. I’ll guess:
i. They don’t want ‘me’ to be able to have a firearm unless THEY say it’s OK
ii. They don’t believe in self-defense
iii. They prefer a disarmed populace that cannot oppose a well-armed, unjust or otherwise illegal government. (a common historically accurate meme is ‘registration/restriction leads to confiscation,’ and confiscation in human history has not gone at all well for the populace, but has gone ‘well’ for those in power)
iv. WHAT are they really afraid of? WHAT, honestly is the future state they are trying to achieve?
b. I ‘fear’ their actual agenda is one very much against individual liberty, the fundamentals of our Constitution, and is very much about the accumulation of power and control to a few. The second amendment was written in large part to prevent tyranny from easily manifesting. Res ipsa loquitur.
c. In my opinion ‘they’ are bald-faced, unapologetic political opportunists. Of course they are using a national tragedy to advance a regulatory agenda that advantages their overall agenda.
8. While we are ‘talking’ about their agenda, let’s examine reported ACTIONS by ‘our’ government. (And I ask you this at the risk of coming across as some sort of a paranoid conspiracy nut, yet this is persistently ‘in the news’)
a. Answer me this, please, IF TRUE: WHY, really, has the Dept. of HOMELAND Security purchased over a BILLION rounds of ammunition (and the firearms to run them through)? Is that true?
b. WHO, really is the threat they are (mightily spending money) preparing to repel?
c. HOW MANY DHS personnel have how many firearms that can be brought to bear against this threat, a threat so real and imminent that the purchase(s) of arms and ammunition needed to be made, now?
d. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton “How many children would that armament expense have fed?” HOW does the DHS justify this to Congress? (Did you even ask?)
9. None of these capture my feelings well, but in general I believe we must do more to curb gun violence. What, in a way, could be more pathetic than selecting this option? Who wants to “do something” to increase gun violence? I know that ‘sounds’ unkind, but here’s what I mean.
a. A person ‘saying’ this to me is really saying “I am powerless, uninformed and driven by my emotions and feelings,” as opposed to having a ‘frigging clue’ – also known as THINKING with rationale, principle, logic, ethics, a knowledge of history and a larger national/ societal context. It’s like they are saying ‘I haven’t a clue but I hope THEY (not me) “do something”.’
b. This demands good, sound critical thinking, fact-based.
For reference, I have pasted in your survey invite on the following page.
I thank you for ‘listening’ and offer my kind regards,
Suwanee, GA 30024
xxxxx@bellsouth.net
|
|
