Critique My Washington, D.C Letter for Me Please
The liberal, left-wing Washington Post wrote an anti-gun editorial in which they hysterically whine about how upset they are with the recent court decision that decided the 30 year D.C. total ban on handguns violated the US 2A. And of couse the city's mayor and police chief are raging mad about the possibility of the peaceful lawful D.C. citizens finally getting their handgun rights back. So I wrote a letter (tried to keep it short. Impossible) which I might mail to the Washington Post as well to the mayor and police chief. Let me know if you think I should bother. Thanks.
Letter below.
30 years ago, a large American city embarked on a very important experiment. An experiment that over time costs millions of dollars, thousands of police man hours and numerous innocent lives. That city is Washington, D.C. The "experiment" was the act of basically outlawing handgun ownership in that city.
The results of that experiment, and the lessons that can, if you care, be learned, have the potential of being able to guide America in dealing with handgun violence in the most intelligent, productive way possible.
As a result of D.C. being our nations capital, unlike most other cities, there are numerous "headquarters" of federal, state, county and city armed organizations. The FBI, CIA, DEA, BATFE, Secret Service, Postal Inspectors, IRS Agents, Park Police, Federal Police, Court Police, Politicians armed bodyguards, State Police, County Police, City Police, Air Port Police, Transit Police, Military Police and probably many more. In short, D.C. probably has, by a large margin, the highest per capita of armed government agents, in ratio to citizens, than any other American city. In addition, as already mentioned, for 30 years handgun ownership has basically been outlawed. A reasonable person might therefore think that the bad guys wouldn't have a chance of committing violent crimes. Yet D.C. is the murder/violent crime capital of the USA. Obviously armed government agents cannot protect the public.
Since the peaceful, lawful citizens haven't had handgun ownership for 30 years, they obviously cannot have contributed to the D.C. crime explosion. This means the crime explosion was created, and continues, due to the unlawful use of handguns by the violent criminals. Criminals who do not, and will not, obey any laws that hamper their criminal lifestyle. This fact is the information that is a direct result of that 30 year experiment. Laws only control the already peaceful and lawful. The very people who are not causing any problems. Piling on more laws will only duplicate that situation.
The passage of the strict anti-handgun law 30 years ago, aside from armed government agents, created two classes of D.C. citizens. One class was the disarmed lawful citizens. The other class was the violent criminals that merrily continued their handgun violence against a now disarmed citizenry. There was no way the violent criminals were going to do without their handguns. If criminals are easily willing to break laws against robbery, rape, murder, etc. it is laughable to think they will somehow honor a "no handgun" law. Especially when handguns can be stolen, smuggled, or even manufactured by the criminals.
So, after the failure of that 30 year anti-handgun experiment, one would think the antigun crowd would face reality. A reality that would tell them that the law should be changed or even eliminated. Eliminated so as to allow the peaceful citizens to once again own handguns. After all, if for 30 years the unlawful criminals have had great success using their illegal handguns (as mentioned by the Washington Post editorial and provided by D.C. Mayor Fenty and the D.C. Police Chief) why not at least give the lawful citizens the chance to do the same? Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens put their handguns between themselves and the violent criminals. Criminals who always have and always will been using their handguns against the citizens. Surely lawful, responsible, hardworking citizens have as much, or more, ability to use handguns to save themselves as the ignorant, lazy, and irresponsible criminals have in using their handguns in their criminal actions against those citizens.
Or, if that idea insults the antigun, liberals delicate objections to violence in general, how about this. Make the only change be that of a new, stricter anti-handgun law? Make a law that provides for a mandatory 50 year sentence for anyone who has a history of violence and uses a gun in a crime. If the liberals believe that gun crime can be controlled by more and more laws, surely they would have faith in such a new law with such punitive sentencing.
Regrettably, what the antigun crowd will and have instead clamored for is NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER. Meaning that the laws directed solely at the criminals will not change. The prohibition against the peaceful, lawful citizens owning handguns will not change. The violent crime wave against peaceful citizens will not change. But at least please remember that one definition of continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is one definition of insanity.
Sincerely,
T.R. Fox
007 Bushy Tail Blvd.
Hounddog, Tenn.
Letter below.
30 years ago, a large American city embarked on a very important experiment. An experiment that over time costs millions of dollars, thousands of police man hours and numerous innocent lives. That city is Washington, D.C. The "experiment" was the act of basically outlawing handgun ownership in that city.
The results of that experiment, and the lessons that can, if you care, be learned, have the potential of being able to guide America in dealing with handgun violence in the most intelligent, productive way possible.
As a result of D.C. being our nations capital, unlike most other cities, there are numerous "headquarters" of federal, state, county and city armed organizations. The FBI, CIA, DEA, BATFE, Secret Service, Postal Inspectors, IRS Agents, Park Police, Federal Police, Court Police, Politicians armed bodyguards, State Police, County Police, City Police, Air Port Police, Transit Police, Military Police and probably many more. In short, D.C. probably has, by a large margin, the highest per capita of armed government agents, in ratio to citizens, than any other American city. In addition, as already mentioned, for 30 years handgun ownership has basically been outlawed. A reasonable person might therefore think that the bad guys wouldn't have a chance of committing violent crimes. Yet D.C. is the murder/violent crime capital of the USA. Obviously armed government agents cannot protect the public.
Since the peaceful, lawful citizens haven't had handgun ownership for 30 years, they obviously cannot have contributed to the D.C. crime explosion. This means the crime explosion was created, and continues, due to the unlawful use of handguns by the violent criminals. Criminals who do not, and will not, obey any laws that hamper their criminal lifestyle. This fact is the information that is a direct result of that 30 year experiment. Laws only control the already peaceful and lawful. The very people who are not causing any problems. Piling on more laws will only duplicate that situation.
The passage of the strict anti-handgun law 30 years ago, aside from armed government agents, created two classes of D.C. citizens. One class was the disarmed lawful citizens. The other class was the violent criminals that merrily continued their handgun violence against a now disarmed citizenry. There was no way the violent criminals were going to do without their handguns. If criminals are easily willing to break laws against robbery, rape, murder, etc. it is laughable to think they will somehow honor a "no handgun" law. Especially when handguns can be stolen, smuggled, or even manufactured by the criminals.
So, after the failure of that 30 year anti-handgun experiment, one would think the antigun crowd would face reality. A reality that would tell them that the law should be changed or even eliminated. Eliminated so as to allow the peaceful citizens to once again own handguns. After all, if for 30 years the unlawful criminals have had great success using their illegal handguns (as mentioned by the Washington Post editorial and provided by D.C. Mayor Fenty and the D.C. Police Chief) why not at least give the lawful citizens the chance to do the same? Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens put their handguns between themselves and the violent criminals. Criminals who always have and always will been using their handguns against the citizens. Surely lawful, responsible, hardworking citizens have as much, or more, ability to use handguns to save themselves as the ignorant, lazy, and irresponsible criminals have in using their handguns in their criminal actions against those citizens.
Or, if that idea insults the antigun, liberals delicate objections to violence in general, how about this. Make the only change be that of a new, stricter anti-handgun law? Make a law that provides for a mandatory 50 year sentence for anyone who has a history of violence and uses a gun in a crime. If the liberals believe that gun crime can be controlled by more and more laws, surely they would have faith in such a new law with such punitive sentencing.
Regrettably, what the antigun crowd will and have instead clamored for is NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER. Meaning that the laws directed solely at the criminals will not change. The prohibition against the peaceful, lawful citizens owning handguns will not change. The violent crime wave against peaceful citizens will not change. But at least please remember that one definition of continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is one definition of insanity.
Sincerely,
T.R. Fox
007 Bushy Tail Blvd.
Hounddog, Tenn.
0
-
"Since the peaceful, lawful citizens haven't has handgun......"
Probably should be haven't HAD.
While a fine editorial column, it's way too long. Too much redundancy in the agencies being listed in D.C.
Make an outline with your core message using a couple of examples.
Example:
Intro I'm a concerned citizen
Background D.C's overturned handgun ban
Historic aspects 30 years of failure,
The right of freedmen to own weapons
Core Message People choose their own way to meet the threat of crime
Conclusion People, not government, are the best protectors of themselves
Closing Give the new freedom a chance.
Hope this helps.0 -
Thank you. I will pay close attention to what you offered and I will corrrect that improper word useage. 0 -
Ok, you got the one p3 pointed out while I was making a reply.
Here is another one.
Or, is that idea insults the antigun.....
Or, if? that idea.........
Possibly instead of.......
Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens use their handguns against crime
Maybe.....
Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens use their handguns to protect themselves FROM the criminals who HAVE guns, laws or not.0 -
Fix the spelling errors.
They make you appear iggerunt.
D.0 -
I would remove any wording that is directly insulting to "liberals". While, true, and I am 100% with you on it, all it does it fuel the fire that its "us against them" (libs vs pubs). This should be portrayed as a battle of good against evil with no partisan politics. The conservatives are already with you, the liberals are not going to be convinced by insulting them. When written that way, it just sounds like a rant.
Also what is with you and your 50 year sentences? Why not just leave it at "stricter punishment and enforcement of existing laws for crimes committed with a gun".0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Fix the spelling errors.
They make you appear iggerunt.
D.
I thinks you means "IGNANT"!
0 -
Good letter..many excellent points. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
I would remove any wording that is directly insulting to "liberals". While, true, and I am 100% with you on it, all it does it fuel the fire that its "us against them" (libs vs pubs). This should be portrayed as a battle of good against evil with no partisan politics. The conservatives are already with you, the liberals are not going to be convinced by insulting them. When written that way, it just sounds like a rant.
Also what is with you and your 50 year sentences? Why not just leave it at "stricter punishment and enforcement of existing laws for crimes committed with a gun".
For some reason I just like the sound of it. Also by offering such a "strict" punishment only at the criminals, instead of at the lawful citizens, it puts the liberals in a bind. Reason being that here I am, a pro-gun person, offering a "gun law". That offering puts the liberals in a bind because if they resist my idea they now appear to be soft on crime and now appear to be part of the problem. And they WILL resist such a stiff punishment because for some reason the liberals have more forgiveness and sympathy for the violent criminals than they do for us peaceful, lawful gun owners.
In addition, if we DID pass a hard 50 law for violent criminals using, for examaple, semi-auto handguns and rifles and large cap mag, and the crimes didn't stop (they won't) we can throw that fact into the face of the liberals when they come around wanting to pass a law that outlaws ALL semi-automatic firearms. Our position can be that even with the hard 50 law in place, the criminals STILL commit their semi-auto crimes so what is the point of trying to outlaw semi-autos when it is already obvious that only the already lawful, peaceful gun owners will obey that ban?0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Ok, you got the one p3 pointed out while I was making a reply.
Here is another one.
Or, is that idea insults the antigun.....
Or, if? that idea.........
Possibly instead of.......
Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens use their handguns against crime
Maybe.....
Level the playing field and let the lawful citizens use their handguns to protect themselves FROM the criminals who HAVE guns, laws or not.
Thanks Pickenup. I say your reasoning on your last suggestion well enough that I made a major, but all together different change.0 -
Good letter. I would leave this paragraph out!
"Or, if that idea insults the antigun, liberals delicate objections to violence in general, how about this. Make the only change be that of a new, stricter anti-handgun law? Make a law that provides for a mandatory 50 year sentence for anyone who has a history of violence and uses a gun in a crime. If the liberals believe that gun crime can be controlled by more and more laws, surely they would have faith in such a new law with such punitive sentencing."
Why give them that option when you are pointing out that the 30 year experment did not work.
Plus the criminals can and do use knives and other tools to mug folks. If the citizens had guns rights they could protect themselves from all forms of attack.0 -
For some reason I just like the sound of it. Also by offering such a "strict" punishment only at the criminals, instead of at the lawful citizens, it puts the liberals in a bind. Reason being that here I am, a pro-gun person, offering a "gun law". That offering puts the liberals in a bind because if they resist my idea they now appear to be soft on crime and now appear to be part of the problem. And they WILL resist such a stiff punishment because for some reason the liberals have more forgiveness and sympathy for the violent criminals than they do for us peaceful, lawful gun owners.
In addition, if we DID pass a hard 50 law for violent criminals using, for examaple, semi-auto handguns and rifles and large cap mag, and the crimes didn't stop (they won't) we can throw that fact into the face of the liberals when they come around wanting to pass a law that outlaws ALL semi-automatic firearms. Our position can be that even with the hard 50 law in place, the criminals STILL commit their semi-auto crimes so what is the point of trying to outlaw semi-autos when it is already obvious that only the already lawful, peaceful gun owners will obey that ban?
[/quote]
The problem is that even if passed, it would only be used as a hammer against the ordinarily law abiding citizen. The true criminals would not bear the brunt of such a law due to their 'disadvantaged' upbringing or some other nonsense. There is no reason for new laws.
The rest is pretty darn good. Let us know where it's printed. I will link it out to anyone who will listen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jbc23060
For some reason I just like the sound of it. Also by offering such a "strict" punishment only at the criminals, instead of at the lawful citizens, it puts the liberals in a bind. Reason being that here I am, a pro-gun person, offering a "gun law". That offering puts the liberals in a bind because if they resist my idea they now appear to be soft on crime and now appear to be part of the problem. And they WILL resist such a stiff punishment because for some reason the liberals have more forgiveness and sympathy for the violent criminals than they do for us peaceful, lawful gun owners.
In addition, if we DID pass a hard 50 law for violent criminals using, for examaple, semi-auto handguns and rifles and large cap mag, and the crimes didn't stop (they won't) we can throw that fact into the face of the liberals when they come around wanting to pass a law that outlaws ALL semi-automatic firearms. Our position can be that even with the hard 50 law in place, the criminals STILL commit their semi-auto crimes so what is the point of trying to outlaw semi-autos when it is already obvious that only the already lawful, peaceful gun owners will obey that ban?
The problem is that even if passed, it would only be used as a hammer against the ordinarily law abiding citizen. The true criminals would not bear the brunt of such a law due to their 'disadvantaged' upbringing or some other nonsense. There is no reason for new laws.
The rest is pretty darn good. Let us know where it's printed. I will link it out to anyone who will listen.
[/quote]
Thank you (and everyone) for your helpful response.
In red above. I planned for that possibility. That is why the law would read "50 year mandantory sentence for any violent crime committed by a criminal with a history of violent behavior. This means that EACH AND EVERYONE here would be untouched by such a new law. Reason being that if you can legally purchase a firearm you must not have a "history of violent crime". Therefore the law could not be directed at you.0 -
How about "stoopd"??
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
How about "stoopd"??
D.
don't be so critical of yourself.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
14 comments