Quint-Essential Conservative Ramblings: 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?