And so it begins . . . . again.

An open letter to the President of the United States:

Dear Mr. President,

I have read the text of your remarks to open the National Urban League Convention and I wish to comment on one area upon which you touched.

But even though we’ve taken these actions, they’re not enough. Other steps to reduce violence have been met with opposition in Congress. This has been true for some time -- particularly when it touches on the issues of guns. And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.

No Mr. President, we don't believe that an AR-15 or a civilian version of the AK-47, both of which fire a single shot with each trigger pull, belong only in the hands of soldiers. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written so that the citizens of the States could go to ranges and shoot for pleasure or to hunt. It was written so that they could not be disarmed by their government and be rendered incapable of defending their own liberty from anyone who sought to take it from them, whether that threat came from without or from within.

The federal government has already denied to the citizens of the States the ability to own weapons manufactured after 1986 that are the equivalent of the ones in the hands of soldiers on today's battlefields. If the criminals have the type of weapon that is found on battlefields all across the globe which the soldiers are also using then they didn't get that weapon in compliance with the law. Making it harder for the law-abiding citizens of these United States to get a gun which is a less functional look-alike of the ones found on the battlefield is not going to solve the problem of criminals possessing the type of weapon which is the most common one carried by today's soldiers as their main battle rifle.

The sentiments that are expressed in the quoted text are already part and parcel of the federal laws. Our laws already require that anyone trying to purchase a weapon from a licensed dealer pass a background check with a federal law enforcement agency to ensure that they are not a fugitive or a convicted criminal and that their criminal background is checked before they are allowed to purchase a gun. That is already part of the common sense policy that is encapsulated within our existing laws.

If you want to ensure that those being treated for a mental illness, or with a history of mental illness, are prevented from purchasing a gun, then you will have to require the health professionals to report their prescribing medication which alters one's psychological state and require that anyone seeking mental health treatment be reported to federal law enforcement agencies so that both their diagnosis and treatment may be properly recorded and able to be examined when the purchase of a gun is sought. Those who have a history of mental illness, or who are currently being actively treated for one, cannot be expected to self report on their treatment or be allowed to simply swear or affirm under penalty of law that they are not now receiving, nor have they in the past received, treatment for a mental illness if the government is to prevent them from passing the required background check necessary to purchase a weapon.

I am asking that you speak plainly about your future intentions Mr President. If it is your intention to seek a new ban on certain weapons because of their appearance, or the maximum capacity of a weapon's magazine, the citizens of the States deserve to hear you say exactly that prior to deciding how to cast their vote for their next president. If it is your intention to require that health professionals report both a diagnosis and the treatment they have prescribed for all of their patients, the people should be aware of that as well. The people of this union deserve the opportunity to cast their vote while being fully informed as to the intentions of the person they are casting their ballot for. We deserve to hear your intentions spoken in plain and unambiguous language Mr. President. Please show us the respect we are deserving of and speak to these matters in a straightforward manner rather than in general platitudes. It may cost you votes, it may even cost you the election, but at least you will have shown us the honor and respect that is due to us from our president and all of our elected representatives and appointed officials going forward.

So I’m going to continue to work with members of both parties, and with religious groups and with civic organizations, to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction -- not just of gun violence, but violence at every level, on every step, looking at everything we can do to reduce violence and keep our children safe -– from improving mental health services for troubled youth to instituting more effective community policing strategies. We should leave no stone unturned, and recognize that we have no greater mission as a country than keeping our young people safe.

And as we do so, as we convene these conversations, let’s be clear: Even as we debate government’s role, we have to understand that when a child opens fire on another child, there’s a hole in that child’s heart that government alone can't fill. It’s up to us, as parents and as neighbors and as teachers and as mentors, to make sure our young people don’t have that void inside them.

It’s up to us to spend more time with them, to pay more attention to them, to show them more love so that they learn to love themselves so that they learn to love one another, so that they grow up knowing what it is to walk a mile in somebody else’s shoes and to view the world through somebody else’s eyes. It’s up to us to provide the path toward a life worth living; toward a future that holds greater possibility than taking offense because somebody stepped on your sneakers.

This, Mr. President, is something that we can all agree on. Freedom is a dangerous thing Mr. President. The more free the people and the society in which they live are, the more dangerous their day to day existences will be. People must be free to succeed and to fail Mr. President. Failure is often times a better teacher than success is. The best, most effective way of keeping our young people safe is to teach them that the rights and property of others is to be respected at all times by everyone else, including the elected and appointed officials of the general government. Those that succeed, and those who fail, are to be respected by all instead of being the subject of ridicule by some because of their success or their failure. What keeps our young people, and all of us, safe, Mr. President, is a respect for the rights and property of others. Without that respect no amount of legislation will keep us, or our society, safe. Please bear this in mind as our union moves forward and as it heals from this latest tragedy which has taken from all of us some measure of the feeling of security which we formerly felt was ours.

Trying to stay out of the "batman shooter threads"- I have to agree with PS here.

Every anti-gun liberal comes out of the closet for each and every one of these events- and start in with the standard- "that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."

They completely ignore and fail to recognize the fact that the second amendment does not utter a single word about hunting. Those words were placed and scripted very carefully - and their entire meaning goes to the citizens right to defense.

Jefferson and Washington and Lincoln back this up with their many quotes throughout history.

Please anti-gun liberals - don't play us for stupid. We know what your intentions are regarding our rights- you intend to chip away at them until they are for all intents and purposes- meaningless and impotent.

We are keeping an eye on you...

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."


George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

What I find funny is when you guys quote the founding fathers like they were somehow smarter than we are now and what they say should be given more credence than what modern thinkers come up with now.

They weren't endowed with super powers. They weren't a super human race that vanished, never to be heard from again.

With the # of gun sales up even with those that have not previously owned before, I think the prez will look at that fact and keep low as the gun nuts are outnumbering the non gun nutz.

Election year ya know.

Raees wrote: What I find funny is when you guys quote the founding fathers like they were somehow smarter than we are now and what they say should be given more credence than what modern thinkers come up with now.

They weren't endowed with super powers. They weren't a super human race that vanished, never to be heard from again.

They were.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Trying to stay out of the "batman shooter threads"- I have to agree with PS here.

Every anti-gun liberal comes out of the closet for each and every one of these events- and start in with the standard- "that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."

They completely ignore and fail to recognize the fact that the second amendment does not utter a single word about hunting. Those words were placed and scripted very carefully - and their entire meaning goes to the citizens right to defense.

Jefferson and Washington and Lincoln back this up with their many quotes throughout history.

Please anti-gun liberals - don't play us for stupid. We know what your intentions are regarding our rights- you intend to chip away at them until they are for all intents and purposes- meaningless and impotent.

We are keeping an eye on you...

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."


George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

The trouble with quotes from the Internet is that 99% of them are made up. -- Abraham Lincoln

Those quotes fall in that category.

Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

I am more concerned about the talk that someone should have known he was going to do this and put him away before all this. Like in the movie Minority Report. We are in the USA. I live here for my freedom and I accept that there are dangers here because of it. I don't want to live in a world of trying to prevent every little thing. And wondering if I even talk about it I will get arrested. If you do that you better give everyone in the USA a list of what they can and cannot say because the list is ambiguous at best. That is not freedom in my book. You start getting arrested before you actually do something? Sounds like other oppressive countries to me.

Yes his notebook that got deliverd too late.

Raees wrote: What I find funny is when you guys quote the founding fathers like they were somehow smarter than we are now and what they say should be given more credence than what modern thinkers come up with now.

They weren't endowed with super powers. They weren't a super human race that vanished, never to be heard from again.

Those men I quoted I consider to be great minds- they had astonishing insight and intuitive skills that lead to the building of a great nation. They knew what it took to free the human potential to build a great economic world power- and it all worked.

Not until the last 99 years did their experiement begin to be preverted by collectivist ideas, which has lead us from the most powerful and free nation - to the mess we have today.

I see by your post that you no doudt have destain for them- you obiviously have no respect for them and what they gave us, and you suggest that we should look first for advise from people like you who think you know better.

Yes I think they knew better than the collectivist minds today- I have yet to find where they were wrong about anything.

Compared to them- your ideas are pure poisen. Tell me why I should discard the best minds of the past- why should we listen to the likes of you?

Raees wrote: What I find funny is when you guys quote the founding fathers like they were somehow smarter than we are now and what they say should be given more credence than what modern thinkers come up with now.

They weren't endowed with super powers. They weren't a super human race that vanished, never to be heard from again.

And were I to provide you with modern thinkers who expressed the same sentiments you would dismiss them as being beholden to the NRA Raees, so what's the point? The reason that we go back to the framers and the founders and what it was that they said is that is the point in time where the 2nd Amendment was written and the purposes for which it was written. If you want to attempt to change the Constitution, by all means, have a go at doing so. But please don't try to do an end around the document by attempting to say that the purpose then and now has changed because technology has advanced far beyond anything that the founders and framers could have ever envisioned. The same is true with regards to the manner in which we communicate or what constitutes our personal papers, but no one dares to suggest that the purpose or scope of the 1st Amendment is somehow out of date because the framers never envisioned an internet or a personal computer.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people retained the ability to defend their own liberty should anyone attempt to take it from them. What is needed to secure that ability has changed with the advancement of technology. If every army, including our own, was still using black powder muzzle loading smooth bore muskets to prosecute wars, then those arms would be sufficient to secure the right of the people to defend their liberty. Such, however, is not the case in our modern world. To have the same right that was protected from being infringed by the 2nd Amendment today would require, at minimum, a select fire weapon capable of sending 600 or more rounds out the muzzle per minute. Forget about revolver type grenade launchers, tanks, or tactical bombers or missiles tipped with small yield nuclear weapons - no one is even suggesting that these unusual and dangerous weapons be allowed to be kept and born by the common citizen. Probably the majority would even be willing to exclude all select fire weapons that send more than one projectile downrange with a single trigger pull. But to attempt to exclude a weapon where the trigger has to be pulled once for each bullet fired? That is a vastly inferior weapon compared to what the common soldier is equipped with today. The US army ceased using semi-automatic arms as its main battle rifle more than 60 years ago - that type of weapon is over half a century out of date compared to how armies are equipped today.

The people seeking to have "assault weapons" banned again are looking to put us a century behind. That would be akin to asking the Continental Army of 1776 to fight a war against an army equipped with muskets and cannons while they had only spears and swords.