A Letter to the Editor

BRAVO!! This guy gets it, and I have never seen it stated so plainly. I have not listed his name or address for obvious reasons.
 

Here is a Letter to the Editor from a man from Sandy Hook who understands the real agenda behind gun control:

To the Editor:

This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid

I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren't harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.

Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.

That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.

You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical because health care costs are killing this country... no they're not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don't care and have no integrity nor honor.

You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit. You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.

I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You'll stop restricting guns when only you have them.

Email to Gun Control Committee

Email I just sent this morning:

 This will be quite a long email because there are numerous issues I wish to bring to your attention. It is not addressing any particular bill, but is a general statement on “gun control”.  I would also request that even if I don’t get a specific reply, at least I get notification that you have received it. If you are really concerned with an intelligent conversation, read on. If you just have an agenda, don’t bother. You will agree with none of the FACTS stated here!

Where to begin?

Gun, magazine, and ammunition control does NOT work. You have to look no farther than Chicago. They have the toughest gun laws in the country, and last year over 500 people, including over 400 school age children, were killed with guns, mostly handguns. Here in CT, with all the gun homicides in New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport , etc., how many of those were committed with legally owned guns? Have you even investigated that? If you pass legislation restricting magazine size, or types of guns, i.e. “AR-15’s”, do you REALLY believe that criminals that possess these illegally are going to turn them in, register them, or do whatever the specific legislation calls for? If someone is out there right now, planning a Sandy Hook type event, do you really think that if legislation is passed, they will say, “oops, can’t do that now, it’s now illegal? If you believe that , you’re living in fantasy land. As a matter of fact, I believe there will be numerous currently law abiding citizens, who will refuse to comply, and become instant felons simply because of words on a piece of paper. There is an old saying that “Gun Control  is not about guns, it’s about Control”. I believe that is where we are headed as a country, more and more desire on the part of government at all levels to control its citizens, so their lives are lived the way Government wants. Once again a bad guy does something wrong and the politicians come after people who have done nothing and have no intention of doing so. It’s a cliche, but it’s like restricting my driving somehow, because a drunk driver kills someone.

Over the past 25 years or so, states across the country have passed “Right to Carry” legislation, so that now only Illinois (remember Chicago?) prevents an individual from carrying a firearm. During that same period gun crimes, across the country, have dropped drastically. Think there might be a connection? Guns are used by private citizens over two million times a year in this country to stop and to prevent crimes, most times without the gun ever being fired. The recent mall shooting in Portland, Oregon was stopped by a legally carrying private citizen. Are you aware that the Aurora theater shooter in Colorado drove an extra ten minutes to that theater, because it was the only one, out of seven, that had  a “No guns allowed” sign on the door.

Here is a video with facts about guns and gun crimes from Reason Magazine:

//www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6lyunRYMenY   

I hear a lot from the media and politicians about “high capacity clips”. The correct term is “magazine”. By saying “clip”, they are merely showing their ignorance of guns. Have you ever held a gun, gone shooting at the range, plinked at soda cans in your back yard, taken a handgun or hunter safety course, or gone hunting? If you haven’t, then your knowledge of guns is limited, at best, and you should not be expressing any opinion, about potential new legislation, until you have gained some knowledge of guns and how they function.

There is talk about restricting magazine size to ten rounds. OK, let’s take a look at the Sandy Hook shooting. It has been said that the “shooter” (I refuse to use his name) used  thirty round magazines. I don’t know how many shots he fired, but let’s say for the sake of argument that he fired 90 shots, so he had to change out the magazines twice. It takes approximately three seconds for anyone even remotely familiar with the gun to change out a magazine and continue shooting. So if he had only ten round magazines instead of thirty round ones, he would have had to reload nine times, instead of two, meaning he would have lost 21 (7x3) seconds. Let’s say it took him double that – 42 seconds. With the police eleven minutes away (or whatever the time actually was), do you really think those 42 seconds would have made much of a difference in the final outcome? The Columbine shooting occurred right in the middle of the 1994 Assault weapons ban. One of the guns used (a Hi-Point 995 carbine), was banned by that law, and Eric Harris still had the gun and only used 10 round magazines and still managed at least 98 shots before he killed himself.

            If a 10 round limit is placed on magazines, how are you going to address the many handguns that are already owned by law abiding citizens that come, when purchased, with magazines that can hold 11, 12, or even 13 rounds. Will they have to be turned in? Will the government give fair and reasonable compensation according to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Is the State in financial shape to do that? If that is the only gun owned by the citizen, how do you square that with the CT Constitution Article First, Sec. 15. “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”. How does any new gun control law that prevents the possession of previously legally possessed firearm square with the “Ex Post Facto law” clause of the U.S. Constitution? All elected office holders take a oath to uphold the Constitutions. Are you going to violate that oath? NY Governor Andrew Cuomo recently ranted in his State of the State address that “You don’t need ten bullets to kill a deer”. He’s correct, a good hunter needs only one, but we may need a lot more than ten to defend life, family, and our Constitutional freedoms.

          There is talk of requiring registration of firearms. Before we go down that road, I would suggest some research be done on the Canadian registration law that was put into effect in 1993, that required Canadians to register all their firearms was dismantled last year, because it proved to be totally ineffective, with only about 30% of Canadians registering their firearms and a cost estimated at $2 million a year when it was started, that had ballooned to $66 million year when it was scrapped.

Does the State of Connecticut have the money to build new prisons to hold all the “new” felons who will be created if these new laws are passed and now law abiding civilians, refuse to comply, or don’t comply because of ignorance of the new law, or will they just be given a slap on the wrist, their now “illegal” item seized, and no prosecution taken, but now they have the word “felon” on their record for all eternity.

          How about we start getting things under control by putting extreme sentences on anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime and making them serve the entire sentence? How about we eliminate the early release program? If we didn’t have that, there might be a store clerk alive in Meriden today. How about we just enforce existing laws to the max, and eliminate slaps on the wrist and release? How about we make it easier to commit someone, on a temporary basis, for psychiatric evaluation? We have a law on the books now that allows police to remove guns from people who are considered an danger to themselves or others. Does that law allow for forcible temporary confinement and evaluation by mental health experts.

          The image I have attached shows the inside cover of the 1959 Woodbury High School yearbook. That’s the Superintendent of Schools holding a double barrel shotgun on the Senior class. When I was in High School (’56-’60), if we were going hunting after school with a friend, we brought our gun to school on the school bus, kept it in our locker for the day, and took it home to our friend’s house on his school bus. After High School, I went to UConn. My roommate and I enjoyed hunting, so we brought our guns to school and kept them in our dorm room closets. Nothing secret about it, everybody knew. I don’t remember any school shootings back then. What has changed? The left wing politicians and their cohorts in the media have successfully demonized guns into being something evil. Guns don’t kill people anymore than pencils misspell words, or forks make people fat. Guns are inanimate objects that do nothing on their own. What they are used for depends on who is behind them, but you will further restrict the rights of law abiding people, to accomplish what? Criminals and nut cases don’t obey laws!

Apparently, your proposed ban does not agree with our own Federal Government! Why are you proposing to ban them if they are suitable for home defense? We aren't allowed to defend ourselves?

http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

         Here is a quote and a link to a blog from a woman who lived in Austria in the 30”s. Are these indicative of where we are headed as a nation?

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

http://www.rationalpreparedness.blogspot.com/2013/01/lessons-on-creeping-gradualism.html#comment-form

Jon Quint

Woodbury, CT

Life Member NRA

NRA Certified handgun instructor

Member: Gun Owners of America

                     Second Amendment Foundation

                     Connecticut Citizens Defense League

                     Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen

                     United States Concealed carry Association

??????????????????

Boy, if this isn't typical of Liberals. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing. They want to ban them, huh? Why??????

 http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

Why Do I "NEED" An AR-15 Rifle?

 I'll tell you why. 

A. It is one of the least expensive (or was) rifles on the market, and the easiest to handle, making it the first choice for those which choose to defend their homes with a rifle. 

B. The AR-15 is based on the M-16 and M-4 military rifles and thus is an "American Rifle" and has been for the last 50+ years. AR does not stand for "Assault Rifle" or "Automatic Rifle", it stands for Armalite Rifle, the name of the company that first developed it in the 1950's.

C.  It shares the same intermediate .223 Remington or 5.56 millimeter cartridge used in NATO military rifles and military surplus or aftermarket ammo is...or was cheap (It is also available in calibers other than .223, such as .308 Winchester and .22 rimfire).  The.223 caliber in one of the least powerful cartridges of any center fire ammunition, not one of the most powerful, as the anti-gun media and politicians would have you believe. It is NOT "automatic" (continues firing until trigger released or empty), it is semi-automatic (one shot for each pull of the trigger).

D. There is NO other rifle in the world that is more customizable or has the sheer volume of accessories available for it. In fact, you can change calibers on an existing rifle by changing out the barrel and receiver.

E. Due to the low recoil of its small cartridge, it is a pleasure to shoot, even for women and children.

F. It is used extensively for hunting, from squirrels to varmints (woodchucks, coyotes, etc.) to big game (deer, elk, etc.) and is extremely accurate. It is the most popular gun in the country today, bar none, and is NOT a weapon of war.

That's why I " NEED" an AR-15 pattern rifle. 

Here is an excellent web site to really learn about "Assault Weapons" and what they REALLY are. http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

How Liberals Think "Gun Free Zones" work.

Gun Free Zones