Dear Senator/Representative ,
Being an educated man or woman like yourself, I would think that you, more than most of your colleagues, would understand the true meaning and necessity of the Second Amendment.
I’m sure you are aware of the writings of several of our founding fathers, most notably Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Noah Webster and John Jay, and the true intent of this amendment. That being to be able to protect ourselves against an illegal excessively tyrannical regime requires that we have and maintain the right to bear arms. Their letters emphasized that the currently disputed phrase “militia” meant that the common people to be readily available to become members of a militia must be able to bear arms of their own to form a militia when necessary and not depend on that errant government to supply them with arms they would need to protect themselves and their liberty against that regime.
The converse of this philosophy is basically the dictate of most communist and dictatorial states. And that is where we are slowly headed toward with the constant attacks against and erosion of the Second Amendment and many other Constitutional issues by the Progressive movement over the last 75 or more years. Another point of contention with the constant attacks against the Second Amendment is the concept of infringement.
Given the increasing regulations and restrictions that so many states, local governments and increasingly more at the federal level have controlling gun ownership, at what point would you consider our right being infringed? Just as a reminder, here are a few definitions from notable resources: infringe: encroach on somebody’s right or property, especially in a MINOR or GRADUATED way; to break or interfere with a person’s freedom or rights.
With regard to the concept of concealed carry laws, the Second Amendment does not specify that bearing said arms were to be restricted to the citizens’ home. Just the idea that so many legislators and government officials, local, state and federal, have the right and ability to carry a weapon for protection while restricting the common citizen the same ability reeks of discrimination and elitism.
And the type of arms a citizen was to be capable of bearing was not restricted in the Second Amendment either. It was implied that the citizenry should be able to keep and bears arms which match the standing federal army if necessary to defend and protect our liberties. This in mind I say: where’s my F16? Maybe you should ask the Syrian people some of these questions about restricting arms (as well as Belgium, Yugoslavia, China, et al). And restricting the type of weapons and specifically the size of magazines is just a further attack and INFRINGEMENT.
The worst school mass murder in the United States wasn’t even perpetrated with a gun. Maybe you’re aware of the instance but in case you’re not, a disgruntled politician (yes, politician! ) blew up a school in Michigan in the 1920s killing almost 40 children and 6 adults. And maybe you’re aware of the mass murders and attacks in China over the last couple of years ago where at least 18 children were killed along with 115 more people injured in 5 or 6 unrelated attacks by men with knives and axes (note that China doesn’t necessarily report negative news too accurately).
So evidently guns with magazines aren’t the real problem nor will forcing further restrictions (read as INFRINGEMENTS) stop a sick or evil person from performing further acts of carnage. And placing an armed guard at every door in every school is not just cost prohibitive it is simply a pacifier. The guard also may as well wear a target on their back. They would be the first one that will be taken out if another sick individual desires to perform another attack. And what do you do about all the school buses? Many hold 40 to 60 students. If a sick person wants to cause havoc he can attack a bus with fire bombs or other weapons or just run it off the road. And who’s going to protect children on field trips, or at say Chuck E. Cheese ().
Please do not succumb to the wave of feel-good, knee-jerk solutions that will be making the legislative rounds in the next couple of months. Think of that constant erosion of the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Constitution. If you have not read much of the Federalist papers or the letters of some of our founding fathers regarding this issue, please take time to refresh yourself on what made this country what it is and how they intended to preserve our basic rights and liberties. I am a husband, father, grandfather, and veteran.
A large majority of the people I know when confronted with these facts do agree that more gun regulation is not the solution to curtail acts of violence that we’ve seen recently. Not even 1-percent of gun violence is performed using a so-called “assault” weapon. But records show some 85-percent of mass-murders in the last few years were performed by people suffering some form of mental illness. So don’t let liberty-robbing legislature be the solution to problems stemming from other reasons.
I ask you to be a true statesman and protect our liberties and the Constitution as you swore in your oath of office. Feel free to forward this to your colleagues and constituents.
John Volakakis firstname.lastname@example.org