A letter to the journalists about gun control
CodenamePaul posted this thread earlier
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=236574
I was going to respond to the newspaper, but the way my work computer is, would have had to use my work E-mail address, which I didn't want to do. I ended up writing a letter which I intend to send to every journalist who writes an article calling for more restrictive legislation. I'm posting it here so that anyone who wants to can use it, or parts of it. I would appreciate any constructive input, and plan on keeping the ongoing draft of this on my desktop at home ready for E-mailing out.
Sir,
As a journalist, I would hope that you were a firm believer in, and supporter of the First Amendment. Just a reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
I have a hard time believing that someone who makes their livelihood based on the protection of the US Constitution would be so upfront in trying to undermine it. Again, just a reminder:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The framers of the Constitution knew full well the power a government wields against their citizens, or more correctly "subjects". They had just fought, and many died because of it. As such, they built in a safeguard to insure that it would not happen again.
They were not referring to the military, or the police. They were referring to the citizen. Citizens willing to take up arms if necessary, and repel foreign invaders as well as keep their own government in check. Several of the founding fathers were opposed to keeping a standing army during peacetime, relying instead on the citizen.
It is reported that Admiral Yamamoto said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Clearly our current enemies do not share the same respect.
Politicians, and responsible journalists should be spending their efforts to lessen the restrictive controls placed on firearm ownership. The disarming of the law abiding citizens have made us as a nation vulnerable. Vulnerable to the criminals that roam our streets, knowing that their law-abiding prey has been stripped of its ability to defend itself, and vulnerable to our enemies who have slipped into our borders, and used our freedoms to travel to turn aircraft into missiles, and attack our citizens.
If there had been merely 1 armed citizen on any of the September 11th aircraft, there would have at least been the possibility that thousands of lives could have been saved. As it is, there was no chance at all.
The argument that the framers of the Constitution had no concept of modern weapons is irrelevant, and most likely incorrect. These were men of vision. You may recall Benjamin Franklin. The inventor of the Franklin stove, bifocals, the lightning rod, odometer etc.
The Second Amendment was meant to insure that the population was at least as well armed as its government. Since 1934 this has not been the case. It was further eroded in 1968, again in 1986 and again in 1994.
I would encourage you to change your position on firearms ownership. It is after all the right that guarantees all others.
Should you choose to continue to use your position to undermine the rest of the Constitution, may I suggest you take your own advice, and do it using single sheets of printed paper, and walking up and down the street yelling "hear ye, hear ye".
Thank you for your time,
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=236574
I was going to respond to the newspaper, but the way my work computer is, would have had to use my work E-mail address, which I didn't want to do. I ended up writing a letter which I intend to send to every journalist who writes an article calling for more restrictive legislation. I'm posting it here so that anyone who wants to can use it, or parts of it. I would appreciate any constructive input, and plan on keeping the ongoing draft of this on my desktop at home ready for E-mailing out.
Sir,
As a journalist, I would hope that you were a firm believer in, and supporter of the First Amendment. Just a reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
I have a hard time believing that someone who makes their livelihood based on the protection of the US Constitution would be so upfront in trying to undermine it. Again, just a reminder:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The framers of the Constitution knew full well the power a government wields against their citizens, or more correctly "subjects". They had just fought, and many died because of it. As such, they built in a safeguard to insure that it would not happen again.
They were not referring to the military, or the police. They were referring to the citizen. Citizens willing to take up arms if necessary, and repel foreign invaders as well as keep their own government in check. Several of the founding fathers were opposed to keeping a standing army during peacetime, relying instead on the citizen.
It is reported that Admiral Yamamoto said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Clearly our current enemies do not share the same respect.
Politicians, and responsible journalists should be spending their efforts to lessen the restrictive controls placed on firearm ownership. The disarming of the law abiding citizens have made us as a nation vulnerable. Vulnerable to the criminals that roam our streets, knowing that their law-abiding prey has been stripped of its ability to defend itself, and vulnerable to our enemies who have slipped into our borders, and used our freedoms to travel to turn aircraft into missiles, and attack our citizens.
If there had been merely 1 armed citizen on any of the September 11th aircraft, there would have at least been the possibility that thousands of lives could have been saved. As it is, there was no chance at all.
The argument that the framers of the Constitution had no concept of modern weapons is irrelevant, and most likely incorrect. These were men of vision. You may recall Benjamin Franklin. The inventor of the Franklin stove, bifocals, the lightning rod, odometer etc.
The Second Amendment was meant to insure that the population was at least as well armed as its government. Since 1934 this has not been the case. It was further eroded in 1968, again in 1986 and again in 1994.
I would encourage you to change your position on firearms ownership. It is after all the right that guarantees all others.
Should you choose to continue to use your position to undermine the rest of the Constitution, may I suggest you take your own advice, and do it using single sheets of printed paper, and walking up and down the street yelling "hear ye, hear ye".
Thank you for your time,
0
-
I would encourage you to change your position on firearms ownership. It is after all the right that guarantees all others.
Laws already remove the right from felons, they still repeatedly break the law, and do not care if they brreak one or two hundred more by haveing a gun. Nearly all the gun laws already on the books are only obeyed by LAW ABIDEING citizens, not the criminal element they were written to stop.0 -
adding... If nothing I have offered has caused you to reconsider your opinions, I ask you to consider this hypothetical: What would you say or do if laws were passed stating that you, as a jounalist, were no longer allowed to report on any subject you wished? How would you address a story when you were restricted by a law that outlawed your opinion and you could only report what a governmental liason gave permission to be printed? Would you call that "censorship"? Would that not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution that say you have the right to say what you wish? I predict that you would fight with every resource available to you to ensure that didn't happen. So I ask why then isn't the Second Amendment not equally as important? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by aramisvi
adding... If nothing I have offered has caused you to reconsider your opinions, I ask you to consider this hypothetical: What would you say or do if laws were passed stating that you, as a jounalist, were no longer allowed to report on any subject you wished? How would you address a story when you were restricted by a law that outlawed your opinion and you could only report what a governmental liason gave permission to be printed? Would you call that "censorship"? Would that not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution that say you have the right to say what you wish? I predict that you would fight with every resource available to you to ensure that didn't happen. So I ask why then isn't the Second Amendment not equally as important?
Good point, because once they get rid of the 2A and disarm the citizens, what would stop them from repealing the 1st. I could see it happening.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
CodenamePaul posted this thread earlier
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=236574
I was going to respond to the newspaper, but the way my work computer is, would have had to use my work E-mail address, which I didn't want to do. I ended up writing a letter which I intend to send to every journalist who writes an article calling for more restrictive legislation. I'm posting it here so that anyone who wants to can use it, or parts of it. I would appreciate any constructive input, and plan on keeping the ongoing draft of this on my desktop at home ready for E-mailing out.
The argument that the framers of the Constitution had no concept of modern weapons is irrelevant, and most likely incorrect. These were men of vision. You may recall Benjamin Franklin. The inventor of the Franklin stove, bifocals, the lightning rod, odometer etc.
The Second Amendment was meant to insure that the population was at least as well armed as its government. Since 1934 this has not been the case. It was further eroded in 1968, again in 1986 and again in 1994.
I would change this part as the founding fathers specifically had to deal with state-of-the-art technology of their time. The Brown Bess WAS state-of-the-art due to it's accuracy and rate of fire over previous models and historical predecessors. It is something that gave us the ability to fight them as we had access to them and could go toe-to-toe with military/government troops of the time with equal and opposite firepower. I am certain that no one that framed the 2nd amendment intended that the citizens/people only had access to a Blunderbuss or the wick, pot, and touch-hole fired weapons of the previous historical hand-canonniers...
I would also add something along the lines of:
We also all know that the argument of child safety is intellectually dishonest, as we all whom take the time to actually research the numbers, know these facts; Automobiles, pools, and even ping-pong balls (yes that's right, look it up) cause more tragic accidental child deaths annually than do firearms of any flavor, yet no one is calling for an unconstitutional, liberty oppressing, ban on cars, ping-pong, or swimming pools.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad
Good point, because once they get rid of the 2A and disarm the citizens, what would stop them from repealing the 1st. I could see it happening.
It happens right now across the globe in several countries that belong to the UN, where if you speak out saying anything against any head of state or government official, people disappear and are never heard from again or rot for decades in state "re-education" camps... Can't we all remember the origination of the term Politically-Correct and what that term encompassed in the Soviet Union?0 -
Good letter, however, it will do little to change their mind. I work with several far-left liberal idiots (LI) and they do not work in the same logic realm as people with common sense.
They have a soapbox, they have an idea, they can't think for themselves. Their mind will not change.
One of my LI coworkers thinks that "rich" people should be taxed at a rate of 90% AND be forced to pay the income taxes for a teacher.0 -
You use too many words to make your point. Here's a much shorter version that would accomplish the same thing:
Dear Pinhead:
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the People, not the State. The State doesn't need freedom of speech, and the State doesn't need the right to keep and bear arms. The People do.
Signed,
Not A. Pinhead0 -
Nicely written dc.[:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
I was going to respond to the newspaper, but the way my work computer is, would have had to use my work E-mail address, which I didn't want to do.
#1 There's a pretty good chance you can access your ISP email from work if you go to their home page.
#2 I'd be glad to send you a GMail invitation. Gmail can be accessed anywhere you can use a browser. henryreilly at gmail dot com0 -
I wrote them back this letter, we should all write them or post something to this guy. Lets show him we are over their crap.
Dear Sir:
This letter is in reference to Bill King's letter;
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/OPINION01/702270343/1008
Your right this is a no-brainer, because there is absolutely no brains/thought put into this. Are you so ignorant as to think that an assault weapons ban will stop crime? It didn't in 1994 and it won't now. Did you mention that a very small percentage of gun crimes are even committed with these "assault weapons" and what is an assault weapon anyway? Congress can't even decide for sure what that is. And these are the people deciding what we can and can't own? It's not the law bidding citizen out there committing these crimes. It's the criminals and they will not stopping these crimes because of some feel good gun ban. I have a news flash for you the 1994 ban was only a cometic ban, it seems congress didn't have a problem with the "assault weapon" they only had a problem with the way they looked so they ban certain features and never banned the gun itself and gun was always available because once the certain features were off the gun it was no longer called an a "assault weapon" and determined safe for the community.
The ban was like this, lets say congress figures too many people were being killed by sports cars, so they decide to ban sports cars. In order to ban them you first have to defined what a sports car is. Congress decides it's any red car with 2 doors and a V8 will be banned, but they can't ban the cars already made so all the red 2 door V8 cars already made are not ban they are grandfather in so they are still on the road. So now car makers start making blue 2 doors V8 cars. Now remember only red 2 doors V8 cars are sports cars are ban not blue 2 doors V8 cars, so these blue 2 door V8 cars are still legal and everyone is happy congress gets a pat on the back for banning sports cars and saving lives and people like you feel good about themselves. Yeah the assault weapon ban of 1994 was a no-brainer, because the people who thought it out had no brains.
T. Gault
Here is there email
onlineproduction@tennessean.com.
and here is way you can leave a post
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/OPINION01/702270343/1008
I urge you to write.0 -
Good Letter. I saved a copy for my own use, I hope that is ok? 0 -
If you are going to write to anyone on behalf of the Second Ammendment, I suggest you use proper grammer and spelling - otherwise you will be dismissed as an "ignorant redneck" by the commie anti-American liberals you are addressing.
dcinffxva did fine, and may actually get the attention of one of these writers.
D.0 -
Some good input here...I appreciate it. I think this project will be one of continuous updates !
I doubt that many hard-line gun control people can be convinced to change their thoughts, the same as most of us won't change ours.
The people we should probably focus our efforts on are the undecided. The more allies we bring in, the stronger our position.
That doesn't mean I'll stop working on the hardcore gun control people though [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
If you are going to write to anyone on behalf of the Second Ammendment, I suggest you use proper grammer and spelling - otherwise you will be dismissed as an "ignorant redneck" by the commie anti-American liberals you are addressing.
dcinffxva did fine, and may actually get the attention of one of these writers.
D.
But of course they have no trouble giving credibility to the immigration masses who can't spell or the other large voting blocks of ignorant welfare recipants that want to feed at the public trough!
I guess its really all about votes! If you vote for them they will listen to you.
I am sure that when you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator they will have their staff check the records and if you are a menber of their party they will respond and give your comments weight. If you are a member of the opposite party I suspect your comments go in the trash and a canned response comes back to you that says nothing.0 -
Excellent letter. You might try what I have started doing. I have given up on just sending a letter to a particular journalist who writes an untrue and/or greatly exaggerated anti-gun article. I send a copy of my letter to many of that journalist's fellow journalists. And sometimes to the offending journalist him/herself.
By so doing I sometimes create a climate of tension, and hopefully honest reflection, among the anti-gun crowd. Reason being that if I were to keep my communcations limited to strictly between me and the offending journalist, my efforts become nothing but a small, ineffective dialogue that will have little long-term effect.
In contrast, if I get my counter-message out to several of the offending journalist's fellow writers, I believe I can introduce some debate and self-doubt among those journalists. That is, if I present a compelling, thoughtful and effective counter-argument to them.
JMHO0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
You use too many words to make your point. Here's a much shorter version that would accomplish the same thing:
Dear Pinhead:
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the People, not the State. The State doesn't need freedom of speech, and the State doesn't need the right to keep and bear arms. The People do.
Signed,
Not A. Pinhead
Great one. I would just add that non-living governments are not able/do not have the ability to possess "rights". It can only possess "power".0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments