Dear Senator Boxer:
In the past, I have voted for you, for Senator Feinstein, and for Billy-Jeff/algore.
In the future, I am afraid that this is going to be an extremely difficult
proposition for me.
I consider myself to be a "liberal," in the context of the
dictionary definition of the term: "...tending towards maximization of
personal liberty..." I support the rights of "gay" citizens, the
right of women to "choose," consider any form of racism to be
un-American, and would proudly call myself a "civil libertarian." I
come from a family of strong Union supporters. My father was a member of (first)
the UMW and later the IBEW.
Unlike the millions who switched affiliation (the last time you folks put
your feet firmly in mouth), I was never a "Reagan Democrat,"
possibly due to the fact that while I was working my way through
University, Mr. Reagan was calling me a "...bum..." Nobody likes to be
called names, especially by the officials they elect to represent and serve their
interests.
It seems to me there is a new class of citizens who are being unjustly
vilified for political gain -- law-abiding firearms owners. Let's think about
it! -- these people are your neighbors, your relatives, military veterans,
retired (and active) police officers, physicians, lawyers, farmers, ranchers,
women who live alone -- ordinary citizens who choose to exercise their
inalienable right of self-defense.
However, if we are to believe the pronouncements issuing from certain
politicians, various special-interest groups, and the daily "spin" in
the mass-media (which, if it ever was "liberal" is now CORPORATE),
these same good citizens are really a bunch of unconscionable baby-murderers. I
think not. . .
Anyone with a heart feels for those whose lives have been forever altered by
seemingly random acts of violence, but consider -- historically, before the
passage of "Prohibition," there was no appreciable "Organized
Crime" in America. "Banning" anything leads only to
opportunities for criminals to profit. If anything, it is the
wrong-headed "War On Drugs," and the truly OBSCENE amounts of money to
be made in the drugs trade that has led to the "arms race" on the
streets, massive corruption both at home and abroad, and the shootings and
killings that have followed from this. (It might be noted here that Senator
Dianne Feinstein, before it became widely publicized, held a "concealed
weapons permit" and Nancy Reagan was known to carry a "little bitty
gun" in her purse, "just in case.")
In My Humble Opinion -- the Democrats are embarking on a very slippery slope
with their knee-jerk "unconditional" support of whatever dimwitted
legislation is proposed under the name of "gun control." I know you
have already heard most of the arguments, and I do not suppose myself able to
surpass others who have failed to convince you--but I must ask:
1) You swore an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution of
the United States. What about (the highest Law of the Land) the Bill of Rights?
What about the Second Amendment? I have (also) heard the arguments about the
"militia" being the National Guard, or some such institution -- and am
similarly NOT convinced. JUST WHOM DO YOU SUPPOSE "THE PEOPLE" TO BE?
JUST WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU (and Senator
Feinstein, and Billy-Jeff/algore) NOT UNDERSTAND? (Hint: It's not about
"hunting" -- You cannot "license" an inalienable RIGHT.)
2) Nearly everyone has seen the now-famous photo of the Federal Agent seizing
Elian Gonzalez. The Officer in question is carrying a fully-automatic 9mm
(German-made) MACHINE GUN. Such a firearm is totally illegal for any
"ordinary" citizen to own -- yet here it is on Page One, being wielded
by a Federal official (whose finger, I noted, was OUTSIDE the trigger-guard,
reflecting at least some good training.) But -- how can you "trust"
THIS person with such a weapon, when you do not "trust" THE PEOPLE?
This is a first step on the road to a POLICE STATE, wherein (in the words of
George Orwell) "Some animals are MORE EQUAL than others."
3) If (best estimates available) there are some 80+ million legal
firearms owners in America -- if (roughly) half of them are Democrats -- and if
(so far) you have only managed to alienate a quarter of them -- that is
10 million voters! Can the Democrats afford such a potential loss of votes? I
don't think so. .
I truly DO NOT wish to become a "one-issue" voter -- I am equally
appalled by some of the "Neanderthaler" candidates proposed for my
consideration by groups such as the NRA, but -- I TELL YOU THREE TIMES -- this
attack by attrition on the Bill of Rights in the name of "gun control"
is ill-considered, and ultimately a losing proposition. I don't think I
have ever voted for a Republican candidate in my life. Please, don't make
me start now. . .
Sincerely,
James Vanderhoef
Further comments from prominent Democrats:
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now
appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible."
[Senator Hubert H. ("Mr. Liberal") Humphrey]
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only
prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as
the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work
and sacrifice for that freedom." [John F. Kennedy]
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
all of the people all of the time, unless you don't teach them to read, and then
you can fool them anytime you want." [Max Headroom]
