Dear Senator Feinstein . . .

Reader Accur81′s letter to Senator Feinstein:

Dear Senator Feinstein,

The tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, as well as shootings in Aurora, Colorado and other locations within the United States, has prompted a renewed interest in what some consider to be “common sense” gun control. While I respect and appreciate your desire to mitigate gun violence in our great nation, it is evident to me that your efforts to create a Federal Assault Weapons Ban and a High Capacity Magazine Ban are misguided, and public safety would be much better served by the elimination of the “Gun Free Zone” . . .

In the Aurora, Colorado shooting, James Eagan Holmes chose the only movie theatre of seven nearby which was labeled as a “Gun Free Zone.” Adam Lanza murdered his own mother, stole her firearms, and shot his way through a window at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Since Lanza was in a Gun Free Zone, an armed person did not challenge him until he had managed to murder an additional 26 people, 20 of them children. All of the victims were defenseless.

Additional mass shootings occurring in Gun Free Zones:

United States Postal Service Shooting:  Edmond, Oklahoma – Aug. 20, 1986
Stockton Schoolyard Shooting: Stockton, California – Jan. 17, 1989
Luby’s Massacre: Killeen, Texas – Oct. 16, 1991
University of Iowa Shooting: Iowa City, Iowa Nov. 1 – 1991
Royal Oak Postal Shooting: Royal Oak, Michigan – Nov. 14, 1991
Lyndhurst High School Shooting: Olive Hurst, California – May 1, 1992
Thurston High School Shooting: Springfield, Oregon – May 21, 1998
Westside Middle School killings: Jonesboro, Arkansas – Mar. 24, 1998
Columbine High School Massacre: Littleton, Colorado – Apr. 20, 1999
Xerox killings: Honolulu, Hawaii – Nov. 2, 1999
Goleta postal shootings: Goleta, California – Jan. 30, 2006
Amish School shooting: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania – Oct. 2, 2006
Virginia Tech massacre: Blacksburg, Virginia – Apr. 16, 2007
Northern Illinois University shooting: Dekalb, Illinois – Feb. 14, 2008
Fort Hood massacre: Fort Hood, Texas – Nov. 5, 2009

It seems that “common sense” would cause someone facing an armed mass murder to desire to be armed themselves. A textbook or a bag of pencils thwarted none of these mass murderers. Indeed, a lawfully armed civilian confronted the Clackamas Mall shooter in Portland, Oregon. The shooter subsequently ran into a stairwell and took his own life, ending the possibility of further bloodshed.

Estimates of lawful defensive gun use run between 2.1 – 2.5 million per year (Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz Targeting Guns) to 1.46 million per year (Dr. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig “Guns In America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”).  As someone who has lawfully used a firearm in self-defense while on-duty, I can relate to these other Americans who have defended themselves. No one in fear for their own life, or the life of a loved one, would desire to be restricted to a 10 round magazine. Law Enforcement does not restrict the arms of their personnel for that very reason.

In a similar vein, I have heard you say that “No hunter worth his salt” would use a rifle such as an AR-15 for hunting. Again, I disagree. Thousands of hunters across this nation have used AR-15s to hunt deer, pig, and other game. I have seen and used AR-15s to hunt white tail deer in Friesland, Wisconsin.

Media moguls and politicians have stated that these firearms belong only on “the field of battle” and have “no place” in civilian hands. Yet more than 600,000 deer hunters entered the woods of Wisconsin this season. The greatest dangers they faced in a sea of firearms were falling out of tree stands.

And what of calls for strict gun control?

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, and lawful concealed carry of a handgun is essentially non-existent. There were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2012. Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the nation, which were completely ineffective in preventing the Sandy Hook shooting.

Los Angeles, New York, and Washington D.C. have high murder rates and strict gun laws. Mexico essentially prevents citizens from owning firearms, and had 27,199 people killed last year, according to Mexico’s statistics and geography institute.  Clearly, restrictive gun laws have not enhanced the safety of these places.

Your plan to vilify lawful gun owners by taxing them and supporting a “high capacity” magazine ban flies in the face of the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Fathers of this great nation.  George Washington said it well “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

As a Marine, shootings sports director, and police officer, I have always understood the value of responsible gun ownership.  Despite my best efforts, I cannot be everywhere at once, or protect anyone outside of my immediate vicinity. Yet recognizing the right of teachers to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in a school would save lives, and protect children by opposing these madmen while they “wait for the good guys.” As it stands, the average mall jewelry store has more security than most schools.

Therefore, I must respectfully state that I enthusiastically oppose your efforts to put forward a federal Assault Weapons Ban and High Capacity Magazine ban. Prohibition was ineffective in banning alcohol. The War on Drugs has not rid our streets of cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP. No cleverly worded law, however well intended, will dissuade a deranged killer intent on murder. It is truly regrettable that some people in this world are so evil as to be immune to common decency, remorse, or pity. These men must be stopped with force, not laws. Perhaps you had this in mind when you received your own concealed carry permit.

Instead, consider eliminating schools as “Gun Free Zones.”  History has shown us that criminals do not follow laws, and have an affinity for locations where their victims cannot legally be armed.  As a father, I would feel much better knowing that a rational and responsible member of my school’s staff was legally carrying concealed.  If the Secret Service can protect the President’s children, there is no reason to prohibit responsible and lawful gun ownership within our nations schools.  Sandy Hook has shown us the horrible tragedy that occurs when the only armed person is evil beyond imagination and has no regard for law or life.

Sincerely,

Accur81

71 Responses to Dear Senator Feinstein . . .

  1. avatarJon says:

    Bravo!

    • avatarready,fire,aim says:

      agreed…too bad it fell on deaf ears…this bitch is on a crusade and nothing is going to change her “what little she has” mind

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Folks this is NOT about whether or not Feinstein (or, far more likely, her staffers) reads the letter. That is, frankly, irrelevant.

        This is a public statement, in a classic exercise of Accur81′s First Amendment rights, intended to counter bad speech with good speech. His letter is running during prime-time hours on the #1 firearms blog on the Internet. I’d be willing to bet that the pageviews on this would be the envy of any newspaper in a mid-sized US city.

        If you think he did a good job, send a link to your local newspaper’s online editor. ESPECIALLY if you live in California. Share it on Facebook. Tweet the link to your friends. And then encourage them to write their own letters.

  2. avatarPascal says:

    While I agree 1000% with the letter, we are fighting this fight the wrong way.

    The liberal/progressive groups are fighting on emotions and morals. We need to throw those same arguments back at their face. We need the story of the women who called dispatch and was told to do whatever she needed to save herself and her child and did so with a gun. We need the story of the teenager about to be raped who saved herself, we need the little boy who saved his mother with a gun. We need the story from Texas where the girl defends herself from several creeps who bust in and make it to the second story to grab her, only to be sent home packing a few holes filled with lead.

    You fight emotion versus emotions because facts are clearly over their heads. They see death, we need to show stories of survival and then give them the moral dilemma of asking if it was better if these people would have all died because they had been unable to defend themselves.

    The rest of the argument follows…

    • avatarSam says:

      I think you have a very good point. Additionally, I would use another tactic, as well. There are so many other pressing matters, the new fiscal cliff, helium supplies dwindling(bigger issue than most think), healthcare issues beyond obamacare, and many more. Start pushing other issues to lessen the focus on gun control. Hell, try to completely ban all birth control and abortion(no matter how stupid that idea is). Get the other side focused of those issues and not on guns. Let them win a hollow war, and guns won’t be touched.

      • avatarPascal says:

        If we has some senator with some balls, we would do just that. Present a bill to Ban abortions. When the arguments come, say that if the gun bill is suppose to save lives lets talk about the lives lost to abortion — according to CDC, including CA and NY who do not report as required, there are about 2 million abortions every year and of that number 8% are from women who have had 4 or more abortions and 12% from women with 6 or more abortions.

        When they talk about women’s rights and saving lives of women, then we can we can bring up all the DGU examples and how guns saved lives. You can’t have it one way for abortion and another way for self defense.

        If the Demcrates believe in abortion for womens rights, then they should not be against guns for the right of self defense.

        If it is simply about lives, then ban abortions if it is not, and we wish to save lives, then why are we trying to pass a law to prevent lives from being saved when an attacker comes?

        Again, present them with the moral dilemma — they will back down. If they try to use facts, then we have them there as well.

        After thinking about the issue, I don’t believe we are fighting the way we should. logic and facts are not the right weapons in this fight — its emotions and moral dilemmas

        • avatarSam says:

          Yup that is my point. It’s like the movie “Thank You for smoking”. I don’t have to win the argument just need to show u lost the argument by taking decisions away from people.

    • avatarNate says:

      You are completely correct. All logic is cast aside in these discussions and, in my experience to far, they devolve in emotional arguments or personal attacks. It amazes me how these people argue for democracy ( I sarcastically assume that what Democrats want), but will take away the rights of the majority because of the actions of a comparatively, minuscule few.

    • avatarBuzzlefutt says:

      I think we’re fighting egos. These politicians cannot be egos and they can’t be convinced.
      It’s like telling a Fan of one team to root for the rival team. It doesn’t matter if the rivals have a better record or nicer uniforms. They’re locked in and ready to go.

    • avatarAharon says:

      People are not so much rational creatures as they are rationalizing creatures. People can claim that they do or will make all their decisions on facts and logic, and that is bogus. Advertising might include some facts yet the copy writers and creative artists know that emotions also have to played too. The most effective way to persuade a person is with stories of how other people, in a similar situation to themselves, took abc action and achieved the desired result of xyz. The most popular and well-read book in the world; the Bible uses stories to ingrain its messages deep within a person’s emotional muscles.

      The neurology of brain decision making is a fascinating subject to read about. Before the new or second brain will consider an intellectual argument it must first pass the old, first brain, the reptilian brain which is the emotional flight/fight guardian brain to be considered.

  3. avatarKelly in GA says:

    So reasonable, so articulate, so well written, so logical, and so never going to be read by her.

    • avatarJake W says:

      yep :-(. It’s a shame that she’ll never read it, or if she does she’ll just dismiss it and keep pushing for the ban.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Eh, worth a shot. I’m on vacation, so I had time on my hands.

        • avatarDrewN says:

          I hate to keep harping on the age thing but…I’ve spent quite a bit of time volunteering at the local care homes, and while there is a huge amount to be learned from our elders, you are not going to convince them to change their mind about anything, ever. Especially folks that were strong minded and driven during their early life. They pretty much view everyone under 65 the same way most middle aged folks view 15 year olds.

  4. avatarMartin says:

    Very well written thank you

    Also there was the shooting in Chardon OH that was a “gun free zone” too

  5. If only we could get this guy, as a Marine, a police officer , and an eloquent writer/speaker, some national media coverage, put a face to the name in an arena that could use someone with this background and demeanor to speak for gun rights.

    Bravo sir, bravo.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Even just a LITTLE face time during prime time could make a difference. Even if we could buy a little of the media there would probably be some coincidental breaking news or emergency broadcast system checks.

    • avatarPascal says:

      You mean like Jashua Boston:

      http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/01/01/no-maam-letter-from-u-s-marine-to-dianne-feinstein-goes-viral-12897

      “Senator Dianne Feinstein,

      I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

      I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

      I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

      I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

      We, the people, deserve better than you.

      Respectfully Submitted,

      Joshua Boston
      Cpl, United States Marine Corps
      2004-2012″

      There seems to be more than a few LEO and Miltary speaking up.

  6. avatarDan says:

    I echo “Bravo” ! This letter will, of course, make absolutely no difference to a progressive/communist, especially Feinstein. However, I know a lot of liberals who would benefit from reading this letter. Sending right away! :)

    • avatarbontai Joe says:

      It’s a GREAT letter, but sending it to Sen, Feinstein is like banging your head against the wall. The lady will not allow her inner demons to be swayed by facts, logic or reason. She is totally unmoveable on this issue. Didn’t you guys hear that she has been crafting this piece of legislation for over a year? Just waiting for the right tragic moment to spring it out of storage and shove it down our throats. I write my local, stste and federal representitives often, but with her, it is sadly a waste of a stamp.

      • avatarDerryM says:

        + 1
        Feinstein is totally closed-minded on this matter and will probably not even bother to have one of her Staffers send you a Form Letter expressing her “Thanks for your views, but ‘go fvck yourself’ because Sen. DiFi knows better than you…you fvcking peon!” standard response to anyone who takes exception to her views. Just sayin’ from previous experience. (Got that type of letter from her a few years back. Got mad and burned it…should have saved it for future reference…dumba$$ move on my part.)

  7. avatarAvid Reader says:

    I stand in awe. Beautifully written.

    Pascal also raises an excellent point. We need to counter the emotional argument with demonstrated dgu by sympathetic victims.

  8. avatarpk in AZ says:

    TTAG gurus…

    Please post something else so my computer doesn’t show this hag’s face!!

  9. avatarstateisevil says:

    Yeah, I don’t think increased safety or decreased violence are her motivations….

  10. avatarSilver says:

    Too many gun rights advocates assume that the enemy actually wants to truthfully do what’s right, but are ignorant or misinformed. You assume that if you present enough facts and logic, they’ll change their minds. You are, of course, wrong.

    For the everyday anti, their stance is about fear, control, and sociopathic disregard for others’ rights. For politicians, it’s about controlling those they perceive as their peasants.

    You will never change anything with letters like this, competent and well-intentioned as they are, because they simply do not care. It’s like trying to explain to a coked-up madman breaking through your window why it’s illogical and immoral for him to be doing so.

  11. avatarDustin says:

    While this is nice but when are we going to admit to ourselves that the anti gun crowd doesn’t care? They don’t care for facts, reason, or reality. Just as we cannot fathom being to dumb to understand these things, they believe we are dumb for our belief in personal responsibility. This is not a battle that can be won, only one that can be fought (continuously).

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Dustin we have to try at a peaceful level first to prove we arent a bunch of cowboy they wish we are. If we jump in running our mouths like THEY do, “#u@% you, you leftist pigs” etc, etc… we will be made to look even more so evil. Regardless of if that is how they already look towards us. And considering we are the ones with the guns, we cant be painted as aggressive and violent.

      I agree with your overall point, dont get me wrong. But with SCOTUS currently on our side and descisions in the Heller case covering not just handguns as people believe but, “in common use” we have to keep calm (for now) and have faith.

  12. avatarJoseph says:

    This letter is excellent and, of course, every word is true. It’s also true that it will have zero affect, because the target audience’s goals have never been, and never will be, safety or an end to violence.

    It’s ALL about total control of the citizens, period. We should start addressing that aspect of the agrument, letting them know we are not fooled by their bullshit, and that we know what the real underlying reason is for their seemingly hysterical rants and actions. They are not stupid, they are hungry for absolute power.

  13. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Nice letter. Cathartic? Yes. Effective? Not on her.

    Maybe some fence-sitters will see it and think, but as far as its stated target, not so much.

  14. avatargunfighter 2012 says:

    It’s not about controlling guns. It’s not about reducing the number of crimes allegedly committed by assault weapons etc etc. It’s about controlling people. When they ban “assault weapons” and that doesn’t work; when they ban all semiautomatic weapons and that doesn’t work; when they ban all long guns and then all handguns and that doesn’t work; when the evil THEY have all the guns and you’re branded as a domestic terrorist and a threat to national security because of one unregistered magazine or one untaxed bullet, that will be the day they proclaim victory. THAT is their “compromise” position. Anything less for them is unacceptable.

  15. avatarBill says:

    “It is truly regrettable that some people in this world are so evil as to be immune to common decency, remorse, or pity. These men must be stopped with force, not laws.”

    Just as it now seems we cannot defend The Constitution from far reaching ultra-leftist liberals with common sense and the words that are already written in the Constitution. Just saying. Takes more than words to defend what the Constitution doesn’t only grant, but guarantees are inalienable.

    These things shouldn’t even be up for discussion, let alone legislation.

  16. avatarCold Frog says:

    Well written and very articulate..the “honorable” Senator Feinstein may or may not read it, but Accur81 can say he at least tried..I agree that we,as the pro-gun side, should start communicating the lives saved by defensive gun use through the various media platforms (radio, tv, internet…etc).

  17. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    I would not call any weapon in normal use a “high capacity” one. We cannot let them win on the language battle. Standard capacity – not high capacity. Moreover, and more importantly, we need to address the arbitrary number of 10. Who picked it? Why do the advocates think that makes sense? What about the real possibility that taxing guns already in circulation amounts to an ex post facto law? Have we pointed out the Miller vs US decision and the holding about “military” styled weapons? Where is the SAF or NRA on this? Maybe they are waiting in the weeds and don’t want to help DiFi craft a better bill.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      I agree, but I’m not that “my” Senator knows the difference between standard capacity and high-capacity.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        This is an important point. While you don’t want to adopt the narrative of the opposition, it IS important to express things in ways that both sides will understand.

        Right now, the public sees a 30-round magazine as “high capacity”, so it’s necessary to use that term to be part of the conversation.

        On the other hand, there’s no need to completely go along with the opposition and start calling it an “assault magazine”.

  18. avatarNate says:

    I guess if they regulate the hell out of guns, there is no reason to keep paying taxes to the US. Time to emigrate?

  19. avatarAlexBosco says:

    I agree…very well written…BUT. And this is something that all of us need to do. We need to inform ourselves before quoting something to our cause. The George Washington Quote is a fake. The actual quote read, “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.” –From George Washingtons first annual address to congress 1790. Could the quote he used be translated in this manner…yes. But lets stick to our “guns” (pardon the pun) and check and recheck what we write and say to other people. We dont want to give these gungrabbers 1 opportunity to demonstrate that what we say is false!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. avatarFrank Williams says:

    A logical, well-written argument. The only problem is that logical, well-written arguments are usually totally useless when dealing with someone who operates entirely by spewing emotional rhetoric.

  21. avatargunfighter 2012 says:

    Quick question: If the guns they are so anxious to ban are suitable “only for killing on the battlefield” why are they handed out like candy to our civilian police.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      The LAPD was outgunned by two bank robbers carrying body armor and fully automatic rifles. At the time, most police officers were armed with 9mms, .38s, and Rem 870 with buckshot, which were not effective at quickly stopping the robbers.

      The incident was a watershed moment, and police agencies across the US started tooling up with AR-15′s and other types of patrol rifles.

      On duty, I call it an AR or patrol rifle. Most everyone does. I haven’t heard of a police gun being called an “assault rifle.”

  22. avatarWiregrass says:

    Damn good letter. Hit all the essential and relevant points in a very well reasoned way. We know it won’t affect her, but maybe some of those sitting on or hanging out around the fence will read it and be persuaded.

    We should all use this as a good model for our own letters.

  23. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    One of the MORONS on the Providence city counsel wants to ban ALL semi auto firearms. He believes that we should only be allowed to own revolvers and single shot rifles and shotguns. Then they’ll be coming for these guns until they have a complete ban on all firearms.

  24. avatarWLCE says:

    dear feinstein (im not going to respect you with the title of senator or with capitalizing your name), f^ck off.

    logical? not remotely. im not going to do her the justice of pairing logic even in the same paragraph as her name. this is meant to be a illogical, rude, ad hominem attack.

  25. avatarGunmedicff says:

    Difi may not read this but I am sending a copy to my Senators and Congressman, they just might listen.

  26. avatarEd Warden says:

    As far as i am concerned Feinstein and her likes are the very reason we have the second amendment to begin with. She wants to be able to carry her gun and no one can have any say, for she feels that she RULES US AND WE BETTER OBEY HER BETTER JUDGEMENT OR ELSE WE WILL BE CRIMINALS. Congress is the real threat to our constitution and bill of rights and we as AMERICANS can never let this corrupt govt have all the power because ” Power Corrupts” and ” Complete Powre Corrupts Completely” I as an AMERICAN will NOT STAND FOR ANYMORE ABUSE OF POWER BY THESE POWER HUNGRY THUGS. This includes our state and local govt who also want to strip away our 2A rights.

  27. avatarRalph says:

    It’s a good letter as long as you didn’t sign it “Accur81.”

  28. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Accur81….My most humble kudos and respect. A very well written letter and very well stated reply.
    I will be making multiple copies of this letter for all of my state and federal politico critters to read and enjoy.
    Thank You Sir!!! Although I wasn’t a Marine(my test scores were too high ;) ), I wish to say to you: Semper Fi !!!!!

  29. avatarAsh. Housewares says:

    Der Feinstein will never read this.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Agreed. However it will go in the bin labeled “against gun control” as opposed to the bin labeled “loves what I’m doing about gun control”. It will schew the mail statistics on this issue. Further, for those of us not in her district, we can remind her that there is nothing preventing us from donating money to her opponent in the next election.

      • avatarAsh. Housewares. says:

        Unfortunately, this h0e represents my state. In reality she represents Megacity-SF and Megacity-LA. The rest of the state has been trying to oust her for years. VERY frustrating!

  30. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    In her own words:

    http://youtu.be/blXkl9YVoHo

  31. avatarjwm says:

    The picture at the head of the post goes a long way to proving that old saying. “You can put lipstick on a pig…………….”

  32. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    From my experience of having debated this issue (briefly) with her in the 90′s, face-to-face, believe me when I tell you: She. Doesn’t. Care.

    Do not confuse her with the facts. Her mind is made up.

    You have to remember, this is a woman who has an entire political career built on being opposed to guns. She came to political power (Mayor of SF) as a result of Dan White shooting Moscone and Milk. After that, she started her run for national office, becoming senator in 1992, if memory serves. She didn’t get bupkiss for attention until the “assault weapon” issue came to the fore after Clinton took the White House.

    BTW, having seen DiFi many times over the years, if that is a recent photo above… the first thing that came to mind was: “She’s had work done.”

  33. avatarg says:

    I love all of these letters that our TTAG community has written. TTAG should create a special page linking of all them to show how informed, rational, and well-thought out our response has been to the Sandy Hook tragedy.

    None of us wants it to happen again, and all of us recognize the fundamental flaw in thinking that simply posting “Gun Free Zone” signs guarantees safety for our kids.

    Great job, Accur81!

  34. Back in 1993 the Government murdered 21 children some they shot and the rest they burned alive to disarm some God fearing people in Waco Tex.

    My question is how many children will they murder trying to disarm the whole country and how many will CNN,NBC,CBS AND FOX be willing to call enough or will they cover up the murders of children like they did in the Waco massacre?

    List of 21 Children Murdered by the ATF and FBI at Waco Tex. 1993

    Lisa Martin 13 Sheila Martin, Jr. 15
    Rachel Sylvia 12 Hollywood Sylvia 1
    Joseph Martinez 8 Abigail Martinez 11
    Crystal Martinez 3 Isaiah Martinez 4
    Audrey Martinez 13 Melissa Morrison 6
    Chanel Andrade 1 Cyrus Koresh 8
    Star Koresh 6 Bobbie Lane Koresh 2
    Dayland Gent 3 Page Gent 1
    Mayanah Schneider 2 Startle Summers 1
    Serenity Jones 4 Chica Jones 2
    Little One Jones 2

  35. avatarWilliam says:

    Personally, I’ve had more satisfying experiences trying to talk to parakeet cages.

  36. avatarMotoJB says:

    Well said/written….too bad she won’t read it or care, because these antis fundamentally believe that all guns should be confiscated. They will never agree to these facts as they see victory in taking as many guns away as possible. Despite the consequences to the rest of us. What does she care? She has her CCW and armed guards already…

    Sad to say but I hope she trips and falls down a long flight of stairs.

  37. avatarmacgearailt says:

    Dear Accur81,request leave to use your letter,with the exception of being a shooting sports director and some other activities you engage in this is the letter I would write if I was on vacation. I’ve already written Sen.D. and the CinC.I would modify portions that relate to me personally and leave the rest alone.My Ca. legislators would be edified by this letter.Bye your leave. Semper Fi.

  38. avatarShawn M. Jones says:

    My problem with the above statement is Sen. Feinstein does not give a flying F**K about stopping shootings. She ONLY cares about controlling the American Citizen.

    It has Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. It is only about Control.

  39. avatarJohn says:

    Here’s my letter!

    Dear Senator Feinstein,

    I believe there to be a circle in Hell for those who would see their compatriots disarmed and slaughtered like sheep at a wolf convention. Perhaps when you kick the bucket, you can say hi to Comrade Stalin for me.

    Sincerely,

    John

    No, I did not send this letter.

  40. avatarKruman says:

    Dan,

    Your letter is very humble, polite and very much self explaining. Thats the reason I would not agree with your letter, because in the last 20 years or so if reasoning could have changed her mind it would have been so much much earlier and we would not even be seeing a proposal from her side. Unfortunately we law abiding citizens need to stand up without reasoning and claim our right against this tyranny. If this BAN goes thru, I see a lot of blood shed and defiance coming. Unfortunately our soldiers/citizens will have to put a fight on our own soil to protect against tyranny from our own people.

  41. avatartreeman says:

    I sense a lot of despair among people who believe these types of letters have no meaning , will not be read, or will not help. Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. These letters and the blog replies that follow do a great service in informing the gun appreciating public that they are not alone. A recent poll indicates tat 75 percent of registered gun owners would actively resist the confiscation of their weapons due to the belief it is unconstitutional to do so, and would place our country in jeopardy. Do you really think the left doesn’t read that and react to it. Biden is now talking about mental health issues. We need more of these letters and more communication, even between ourselves. It helps.

  42. avatartreeman says:

    As an example, I recently sent the following to an individual asking ” I am appalled that enforcing gun control has taken priority over expanding mental health care treatments. After all, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Why would a sane individual require a rapid fire killing machine with a foot long banana clip to protect himself, shoot skeet, or hunt rabbits?” This was an attempt at a balanced approach to the issue but it asked the wrong question. My answer follows.
    It is obvious that you put a lot of effort into these bytes. I want you to consider one thing when you muse about the gun control issue. The answer to your question is that no one would need that kind of weapon for those purposes. However, I think it is the wrong question.
    You really need to look at US history, the federalist papers, the writings by the drafters of the constitution at the time. It is clear that the discussions around the amendments, to that document, first centered around the citizens having the rights necessary to ensure a representative democracy. Their first thoughts and therefore the first amendment centered around freedom of speech. Having just won the right to criticize the government, if they wished, they were intent on insuring that right permanently. Ala the first amendment. They then debated how to ensure the people keep those rights. With every citizen who wanted to be, armed, they felt that an out of control government, like they felt England was, at the time, could not impose it’s will on the people. They were very smart people. So the second amendment had nothing to do with people hunting, or people protecting their homes from local threats. It was about protecting them from an out of control government. This changes the question about what weapons are reasonable, considerably.
    The second amendment had some interesting consequences. During WW2 the following quote was recoded. Admiral Yamamoto: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Advising Japan’s military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan’s decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.
    We should still discuss how to have a sane policy on guns, but it must be in the proper framework. And it is an issue which could cause intense turmoil in the country. There are over 300,000,000 registered guns in the US. A recent poll indicated that 75% of guns owners would actively oppose the confiscation of their weapons. Pick any three states in the country, and there are more Registered weapons than the US military has. This is not an issue to deal with quickly or imprudently.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.