This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Letter to
Triggerlock Happy Congresscritter by T. Dave Gowan, Ph.D. Originally published on this website August 28, 2000 Dear Congresswoman Carson: I found your poll regarding requiring trigger locks on the web site at http://www.house.gov/carson/gunpage2.htm. Should my new target pistol, that I actually compete with, and is
high-quality Olympic model from a foreign maker, come with a trigger lock? No! I don't have any kids, and my firearms are locked up. No one is going to make
a trigger lock for this pistol, so the effect of your law will be that Americans
will not be able to buy these Olympic-quality firearms suitable only for
competition because they won't be available with trigger locks. I think you're making a nonsense public relations ploy here, and not a
commonsense proposal. It's as bad as the cop-killer-bullets ploy... which
because it was so nonspecific, if it had been enacted, would have banned all
hunting bullets used in rifles -- because all of them will penetrate a
policeman's vest (I was a deputy sheriff). The cop-killer bullet proposal would
have gone much better if the authors had proposed to ban only the possession,
import, manufacture or sale of any teflon-coated bullet, or specifically the KTW
bullets which caused the ruckus. Such a ban as that would have been attacking a
real problem. I can just see the "Committee" appointed by the federal
government to decide which bullets to ban -- if past experience is any guide
(see the makeup of the Committe supervising the Civilian Marksmanship Program,
which had a HandGunControl member forced into it), the new Ban-The-Bullets
committee would have had on it a member who was totally opposed to hunting. For me to agree to your trigger locks proposal, I'd want to see you propose
legislation to attack the real problem in a way that would not attack a
nonproblem, i.e., not require it universally; be specific what firearms you want
them on; define it clearly in a way that persuades the people what problem you
are really attacking. In any event, here in the south, we are spread a little
further apart, so we occasionally get home invasions and burglaries, and I would
never use a trigger lock under any circumstances even if I were forced to buy
one. Honestly, your lack of specificity causes your hidden motives show through
clearly... People keep guns in the home (a) because they use them elsewhere
(like hunting), and need to lock them away for protection between uses, and (b)
they want them handy for self-protection. So, what your proposal really does, is ban self-protection uses by citizens
in their own home, or prevent them from using them when they need them urgently.
And since I'd never think you were that stupid, I guess what your real motive
is, is to simply take all firearms away from law abiding citizens. I HOPE you DO
understand that the worst thing of all about your proposals is that you are
attacking only law-abiding citizens. Criminals will never have, use, or purchase
trigger locks, and no law the Congress will ever pass will persuade them to. Frankly, if your proposal were actually passed, and I had to buy one, I'd
give it right back to the dealer so he can GIVE it to the next firearm
purchaser. The end effect of your law would be that there would be such a glut
of trigger locks available on the market, that every criminal would get all they
want, for free! T. Dave Gowan, Ph.D. KeepAndBearArms.com Note: We agree with this letter save one thing: "The cop-killer bullet proposal would have gone much better if the
authors had proposed to ban only the possession, import, manufacture or sale
of any teflon-coated bullet, or specifically the KTW bullets which caused the
ruckus. Such a ban as that would have been attacking a real problem." As a matter of fact, citizens have the right to own, carry and shoot any type
of bullet the police or military own, carry and shoot, period. The point of the
second amendment was and is to be able to, if needed, quell the assaults waged
by a dictatorial and/or tyrannical government. What good would come of allowing
cops and the military to have bullets that would be more effective than the
citizenry's? What good would it do to ban citizen access to bullets that will
penetrate the bullet-proof shields or clothing of the government that may one
day need to be put in its place by force? Bear in mind that there are
already restrictions on citizen access to bullet-resistant materials in some
areas of the nation, indicating that some of the "leaders" in the
country believe they should be more bullet-resistant than you should. Other than that, our dear brother Gowan, great letter. Keep on
writing!! Respectfully, KeepAndBearArms.com To Get Your Letters Printed Here |
||||||||