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]