Letters to the Editor

[Ektarr]

I thought it might be nice to have a place where we can share letters we've written to various Editors, etc., in defense of 2A. My thought was that there could be a place where, if I want to write to address an issue, I could draw upon the intellect of my Brothers & Sisters in arms and find a way to express myself that another may have already done, and perhaps better that I could.

By posting a letter here, the understanding would be that any of the rest of us might pick-and-choose portions which we could "borrow" for our own use, our efforts all being for the same cause.

I can't be the only one of us who's become pissy at something I've read and put pen to paper (euphemistically speaking) to speak my mind. Let's see what you've got to say.

I'll start...

-------------------------------------

P.S.: I get verbose

[Ektarr]

I read with interest the editorial by John McLaughlin regarding the polling of political candidates with respect to their views on gun rights.

Mr. McLaughlin gives the impression that such polling is inappropriate. Perhaps he is unaware of all the other organizations which take the measure of where a candidate stands on issues important to that group, among which are the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the NEA — even the American Society of Newspaper Editors:

“Dear ASNE member:
ASNE has joined a broad coalition of journalists’ groups in urging key senators to support and champion legislation to clarify and alter language in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that creates a damaging loophole in the Freedom of Information Act.” (Source: http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4402)

Taking the measure of your candidate isn’t silly or self-serving . . . it’s prudent democracy.

The editorial implies that there should be a limit on the number of firearms a person should be allowed, that the registration of gun owners is a laudable goal, that being able to defend yourself with a concealed weapon is unacceptable, and that there should exist a freedom to pursue manufacturers of firearms whose product is subsequently used to commit crimes. I wish to address those points.
I don’t know why there should be a limitation on the ownership of guns. I can own as many cars as I want although I can only drive one at a time. I can even buy cars that can go over two hundred miles an hour, even though the motor vehicle laws make such a purchase ludicrous and excessive. What a waste of money, gas and horsepower! But I can do it. Those who enjoy the aesthetics of a firearm, though you may not share that enjoyment, or the ‘zen’ of being able to try to place round after round through the same hole, though you may not share that pleasure, are entitled to their pursuit.

History weeps with stories of subjugated people who came under the iron rule of despots and maniacs. In every instance, first they lost their means of self-defense, then they lost their freedom, then they lost their lives. At what point do we decide that the erosion of the Right to self defense needs to be re-asserted? Wouldn’t it be better never to relinquish it at all? The Constitution of the State of New Jersey states:

New Jersey Constitution Article I, [1.]
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and *unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

(*Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) (Emphasis added)

What is the quality of such a Constitutionally guaranteed Right when one is denied the tools by which that Right can be exercised?

Suppose you were given the freedom to write anything you wanted but denied any medium by which to publish or distribute your work? Silly, isn’t it? The Right to self defense is as old as nature. That it should be subject to scrutiny or open to interpretation is curious. When confronted by a menace, what is one to do? Call 9-1-1? Studies show that the average response time to an emergency call is around 10 minutes. Wait for the Police? Courts have ruled, time and time again, that there is no obligation on the part of law enforcement personnel to protect you. Their job is to enforce the law, keep the general peace and investigate crime. “Investigate crime” implies that the deed is done, and whatever was going to happen to you is already accomplished. So if not the police, then who? Are you so righteously offended by the right of self protection that you would jeopardize the lives of your loved ones to stand by your convictions? Put your daughter or wife arms-length from a rapist or murderer. Put a gun in her one hand and a cell phone in the other. Now . . . you pick a hand.

Manufacturers of guns are no more responsible for guns used in crimes than are automobile manufacturers for their cars being used for speeding. In every case, it is the operator of the device who determines the will of the act, for good or for ill. Guns don’t commit crimes any more than cars speed . . . and the availability of a gun is no more responsible for crime than access to fast cars is responsible for traffic violations. It is the driver who determines. It is the driver who expresses his will.

What about accidents? Statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, covering annual numbers and rates of death due to accidents and other reasons from 1981 through 1999, are available at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Most accidental deaths involve or are due to motor vehicles (42%), falls (13%), poisoning (12%), suffocation (6%), drowning (4%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (3%), and environmental factors (2%). Firearms are involved in only 0.8% of accidental deaths. According to these numbers, you are almost four times as likely to be killed accidentally by your physician than by your gun. And automobiles account for over 50 times more accidental deaths than do guns! If confronting the source of accidental death is your goal, your priorities may need review.

The current political climate is enabling encroachment of our Rights. To the that degree it does should, as a lover of your guaranteed Right to a Free Press, scare the hell out of you. When the Second Amendment falls, the First will be right behind. As an American, you should be concerned with the efforts of the United Nations to dictate to citizens of this country what we can and cannot do. We have legislators whose agenda it is to fall into lockstep with those who would insinuate their will on us to eradicate those freedoms which we both cherish. These Legislators take a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . my Rights as well as yours. Where is their outrage?? What are they thinking?? Where the hell are these people?

Am I interested in those issues I view as important to America? Absolutely. Will I poll the attitudes of candidates toward those issues? Without apology. The difference between us is that while I’m as interested in protecting your Rights as well as mine, it is you who are only concerned with your own interests.

[Ektarr]

Editor, The Herald News:

I write in response to today's article by Eileen Markey regarding the Paterson home of Minerva Alzamora being attacked. Ms. Markey characterizes the attackers as "young people" and "rowdy teens". Forgive the indelicacy, but the home was attacked by a group of young thugs bent on doing serious damage, or worse, serious injury to someone. It's just that sort of euphemistic phraseology that prevents these gangsters from being seen for what they are so something can be done about it. Such "politically correct" avoidance of the obvious allows those activities to blossom and flourish until you're faced with a problem of such magnitude it cannot be controlled. And here you are. "Rowdy teens" don't trash a house and terrorize innocent people including little kids. Terrorists do that. "Rowdy Teens" turn up the radio too loud, have loud parties and annoy their neighbors. Ask Ms. Alzamora's family if they'd like to exchange that for what they have now.

Police Lt. Traina says, "the high number of emergency calls mean police simply cannot get to every job immediately." What does that tell you? Who's suppose to protect you when these things happen? His other comments: "We get 30 to 40 calls an hour", "we don't have the manpower", and "Jasper and Union is a bad gang area. We've addressed it many times, but it keeps coming back" all speak to a system out of control. There are only so many police to go around and, like any entity, they have to prioritize. Where does one's personal safety fall on that list of priorities? At what point does it fall upon me to defend myself and my own family from these goings-on when the police have admitted that it's gone beyond their control? Who else among us will have to sacrifice either themselves or a loved one on the altar of political correctness before someone looks up from their Approval Poll ratings to see what's going on under their noses?

The Constitution of the State of New Jersey, Article I, [1.], states: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." [emphasis added]. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Unalienable means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. [emphasis added]. That New Jersey Legislators take away the wherewithal to act in their own defense by denying the people of this State the tools and freedom to exercise this Right and by making those who choose to do so into the 'criminal' is nothing less than unconstitutional. Those New Jersey politicians who participate in hamstringing the people of New Jersey by failing to recognize the natural Right of Self Defense are participants in the evils which ensue, and accessories to the fact. Such legislation is an affront to decent people all over the State and an abomination, and tells us all that the "right" of a criminal to run wild and slash and burn with abandon takes priority over the Right of the citizen to draw a line beyond which that activity may not cross.

Such laws are ludicrous . . . no, more than that, they're insane. Only insanity would expect a person to stand by and do nothing while he or his family is attacked and terrorized. Or worse. Wake up, New Jersey! The inmates are running the asylum, and the Guardians who are supposed to be protecting us from them are asleep at the wheel. The police can only do so much. And the politicians are too busy trying to get reelected and be "political" to really care about anything else. You have to take responsibility for your own protection, and you have to tell your Legislators that criminalizing Self Defense and the tools to enforce it is no longer acceptable. The laws MUST be changed to recognize the Right of Self Defense, and provide for the means to exercise it freely and without fear of recrimination. Failure to do so, and soon, means more Alzamora families across the State. And when your turn comes, and the Police finally get there and ask you why you took matters into your own hands and shot an attacker in self defense, remember to ask: "Where were you?"

[Ektarr]

Editor, The Times:

I write in response to your editorial of today, Guns for protection? Think again.

I agree with you regarding the possible outcome of this potentially tragic situation, but I totally disagree with your conclusions. That guns in the home place families at risk is no more true than having a car in the home puts a family at risk, in fact, probably less so. From an "Accidental Death" perspective, firearms fall far down the list of potential hazards.

Statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, covering annual numbers and rates of death due to accidents and other reasons from 1981 through 1999, are available at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Most accidental deaths involve or are due to motor vehicles (42%), falls (13%), poisoning (12%), suffocation (6%), drowning (4%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (3%), and environmental factors (2%). Firearms are involved in only 0.8% of accidental deaths. According to these numbers, you are almost four times as likely to be killed accidentally by your physician than by your gun. And automobiles account for over 50 times more accidental deaths than do guns! If confronting the source of accidental death is your goal, your priorities may need review.

This boy was the victim of "relentless teasing" to the point where he entertained "revenge fantasies". Your conclusion is that the availability of a firearm brought this fantasy within easy reach. No consideration seems to have been given to his going to great lengths to secure these weapons. His heart must have really been in it. The liklihood is that with such determination, had a firearm not been available, he could have easily filled a few bottles with gasoline and rags, or stolen a car and run into a cluster of people, or taken a butcher knife out of the kitchen . . . any one of a dozen easily accessible ways to inflict damage. The fault doesn't lie with the gun . . . it lies with the actor. Guns don’t commit crimes any more than cars speed . . . and the availability of a gun is no more responsible for crime than access to fast cars is responsible for traffic violations. It is the driver who determines. It is the driver who expresses his will.

Ceasefire NJ has its own agenda and anyone who takes their findings at face value is doing his conclusions a disservice. An alternate source of data which has yet to be successfully disputed is Prof. Jon Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime, which shows that the mere presence of a gun has deterred more crime — an estimated 2,000,000 times a year! — than is ever reported. No one reports on crimes that don’t happen. Further, if so-called “Smart Gun” technology is such a boon to safety and society, why are the ones whose very lives depend on firearms every day — the police and military — exempt from their use? Wouldn’t you think that police officers, who suffer shootings all the time by bad guys who wrest the officer’s firearm away from them and are shot with their own weapon, would be the very first in line to embrace this new technology? Why do you suppose they want to be left out?

The fact is that firearms are a necessary part of a free society, which is why the Founders made sure that “We, The People” could not be denied the freedom to keep and bear arms, despite the spin that rewriters of the Constitution might want to put on it. And firearms create a level field when, for example, a small woman is confronted by a large man, or when one is set upon by many. Thirty-five States now enjoy the freedom to carry concealed weapons for self defense, and in every case the incidence of personal violent crimes has gone down, in many cases by double digits.

“Smart guns” are not the solution. Smart people are, and the solution is to ensure that, if you have guns in the home, everyone in the home knows it, knows they’re not toys, knows how to shoot if they’re old enough and to leave them alone if they’re not, but at least take the mystery away so guns are not viewed as “forbidden fruit”. Personally, I’d be interested to know the depth of interest this boy had in violence-oriented video or computer games, which glamorize death and destruction and sanitize the act of killing. I think you’ll find a greater correlation to that behavior than you will to the availability of firearms.

[Ektarr]

Editor, The Ledger:

Once again the paper is reporting that the law-abiding citizen of New Jersey is at the mercy of someone who would steal away the freedom to be safe in your neighborhood, workplace and home and there’s nothing we can do about it except lick the hand of our “protectors” and beg for assistance.

The rapist who stalks the streets of New Brunswick does so with full knowledge that his victim is unable to bring to bear any form of serious self-defense. The “solution” is to march . . . to petition the officials who have already admitted that they have no clues except those which link this perpetrator to the crimes, and who have no real solution for you, to please do something. It apparently escapes their attention that if there was something they could do, they’d be doing it. We have 12 women raped in the last two years, but there was no one from the Law Enforcement community at hand to protect these women when these crimes occurred. That’s because their job is not to protect you, specifically . . . their job is to try to catch the criminal. In this case, sadly, that means that someone has already been raped.

Once again it needs to be pointed out that the responsibility for your protection falls upon you, the individual, not the government. That New Jersey Legislators continue to beat the drum for gun control while turning a blind eye to crime control is unconscionable.

The Constitution of the State of New Jersey, Article I, [1.], states: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." [emphasis added]. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Unalienable means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. [emphasis added]. That New Jersey Legislators take away the wherewithal to act in their own defense by denying the people of this State the tools and freedom to exercise this Right and by making those who choose to do so into the 'criminal' is nothing less than unconstitutional. Those New Jersey politicians who participate in hamstringing the people of New Jersey by failing to recognize the natural Right of Self Defense are participants in the evils which ensue, and accessories to the fact. Such legislation is an affront to decent people all over the State and an abomination, and tells us all that the "right" of a criminal to run wild and slash and burn with abandon takes priority over the Right of the citizen to draw a line beyond which that activity may not cross. Certainly rape falls into that category as well. Such laws are ludicrous . . . no, more than that, they're insane. Only insanity would expect a person to stand by and do nothing while she is attacked and terrorized.

Wake up, New Jersey! The inmates are running the asylum, and the Guardians who are supposed to be protecting us from them are asleep at the wheel. The police can only do so much. And the politicians are too busy trying to get reelected and be "political" to really care about anything else. You have to take responsibility for your own protection, and you have to tell your Legislators that criminalizing Self Defense and the tools to enforce it is no longer acceptable. The laws MUST be changed to recognize the Right of Self Defense, and provide for the means to exercise it freely and without fear of recrimination. Failure to do so, and soon, means more rapes, assaults and terror. Don’t wait until it becomes your turn.

[Ektarr]

Editor:

Once again the newspapers are of New Jersey reporting that law-abiding citizens have suffered as a function of hypocritical legislators who would steal away the freedom to be safe in your neighborhood, workplace and home, denying us our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights to self defense, while they frolic around the State secure in their tax-paid security cocoons. Lisandra Cassanova and her mother, Yolanda Camacho, of Egg Harbor Township are dead as a direct result of the New Jersey Legislators who denied them the wherewithal to stand their own defense. Where was their means of protection? It took police officers seven minutes to respond. Where were the police?

The answer is that the police were doing their job: patrolling the streets, keeping the peace, and enforcing the law. Their job, unfortunately, is not crime prevention. The police have no imperative to protect you, the individual citizen. Unless they come upon a crime in progress, they have no way of preventing it from happening. These women did what our politicians told them to do: they called 9-1-1. And while they waited . . . they died.

Seven minutes.

Atlantic County Prosecutor Jeffrey Blitz claimed that “Seven minutes, in a large township, I have no reason to believe that's not prompt." It’s regrettable that he is unable to ask Yolanda and Lisandra their opinion.

The rapist who stalks the streets of New Brunswick, the killer who takes it into his mind to kill in Egg Harbor, the mugger who attacks you in Newark . . . they do so with full knowledge that their victim is unable to bring to bear any form of serious self-defense. Over and over criminals who have been asked respond that they are unafraid of the police, but they pause when confronted by the idea of confronting an armed citizen, and will select a different victim if they believe one to be armed.

The “solution” legislators offer is to call 9-1-1 . . . to call people who may take many precious minutes to respond, and, as we see, even seven minutes can be a lifetime.

Once again it needs to be pointed out that the responsibility for your protection falls upon you, the individual, not the government. That New Jersey Legislators continue to beat the drum for gun control while turning a blind eye to crime control is unconscionable. Even Governor-elect Corzine, surrounded by private security and the State Police, crows that he plans to make New Jersey the first “gun-free” State. How laudable. Perhaps he should view what similar legislation has wrought in England, Wales, Scotland and Australia. Hypocrisy, and political posturing. Nothing more . . . nothing less.

The Constitution of the State of New Jersey, Article I, [1.], states: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." [emphasis added]. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Unalienable means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. [emphasis added].

What is the quality of a Right which is constrained by laws which prevent it from being exercised? Of what value is it? That New Jersey Legislators take away the wherewithal to act in our own defense by denying the people of this State the tools and freedom to exercise this Right and by making those who choose to do so into the 'criminal' is unconscionable, unconstitutional, and unacceptable. Those New Jersey politicians who participate in hamstringing the people of New Jersey by failing to recognize the natural Right of Self Defense are participants in the evils which ensue, and accessories to the fact. Such legislation is an affront to decent people all over the State and an abomination, and tells us all that the "right" of a criminal to run wild and slash and burn with abandon takes priority over the Right of the citizen to draw a line beyond which that activity may not cross. Certainly rape and murder fall into that category as well. Such laws are ludicrous . . . no, more than that, they're insane. Only insanity would expect a person to stand by and do nothing while she is attacked and terrorized.

Where is your outrage? Wake up, New Jersey! The inmates are running the asylum, and the Guardians who are supposed to be protecting us from them are asleep at the wheel. The police can only do so much. And the politicians are too busy trying to get reelected and be "political" to really care about anything else. You have to take responsibility for your own protection, and you have to tell your Legislators that criminalizing Self Defense and the tools to enforce it is no longer acceptable. The laws MUST be changed to recognize the Right of Self Defense, and provide for the means to exercise it freely, wherever you may be, and without fear of recrimination. Failure to do so, and soon, means more murders, rapes, assaults and terror. Don’t wait until it becomes your turn.

[Ektarr]

Sen. Hatch:

In 1982 you Chaired the Subcommittee On The Constitution regarding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Among those who shared participation with you on this committee, who still hold ranking positions in our Government, were Sen Edward Kennedy, Sen. Robert Byrd, Sen. Arlen Specter, and Sen. Joseph Biden.

This report concluded — “inescapably” — that “the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

Senator, the intervening 23 years have brought us more rhetoric about firearms and this important Right than perhaps any other. The struggle to disarm the American public in the face of a mocking criminal element and an encroaching terrorist threat has gained ground. Now especially, when an armed and ready populace in the image of Israel would be a serious consideration for anyone who would have at us at will, individually or collectively, this effort to disarm is a detriment to every freedom America has worked to achieve and would endeavor to retain.

While anyone would agree that keeping Americans safe from accidental harm is a worthwhile effort, statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, covering annual numbers and rates of death due to accidents and other reasons from 1981 through 1999, are available at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Most accidental deaths involve or are due to motor vehicles (42%), falls (13%), poisoning (12%), suffocation (6%), drowning (4%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (3%), and environmental factors (2%). Firearms are involved in only 0.8% of accidental deaths. According to these numbers, you are almost four times as likely to be killed accidentally by your physician than by your gun. And automobiles account for over 50 times more accidental deaths than do guns.

The conclusion of your committee is clear and unequivocal. Legislation — anywhere —which would curtail the natural instinct and Right to self defense and protection of one’s loved ones are ludicrous . . . no, more than that, they're insane. Only insanity would expect a person to stand by and do nothing while he or his family is attacked or terrorized. Or worse.

My question, Senator, is why this obvious and important work was allowed to fade away. I have heard it said that politicians aren’t really interested in the American people. To quote one discussion participant: ”They are politicians. The vast majority of them care nothing about your rights, only about power and money. Talking about your rights is a way to keep you happy while they destroy your rights.” I refuse to believe this of all lawmakers, and so I write to you.

In your report, it is written that “The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.” I agree, and I applaud the clarity and Truth of your report.

There is, currently, legislation in Congress known as the SAFE Act of 2005 — H.R. 1243. This Bill would afford anyone licensed to carry a concealed weapon in their own State to carry legally in any other State which recognizes concealed carry, much like a driver’s license allows a licensee in one State to drive in another State.

While argument could be made that NO one’s permission is necessary to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed Right, I would ask for your earnest effort to support this legislation both in the House and when it comes before the Senate. As a law-abiding citizen I would not care to challenge laws, however repugnant to the Constitution, which limit this Freedom . . . let the truly criminal element enjoy that distinction.

I would ask that you reach back to your findings of the Subcommittee report and assist in bringing dignity and value back to the Bill of Rights and, in particular, the Second Amendment. Please use your influence and respect in the Lawmaking community to help us to bring the lawful carrying of concealed weaponry back to where it belongs, as a viable alternative to those who would do us ill, for which we require no man’s authorization.

Thank you for your time and attention, for your consideration of my petition, and for your dignity, and service to our country.

Sincerely and respectfully,



R. Edward Parker

[Ektarr]

This thread was a stroke of freakin' Genius, eh?

[DrDavidM]

Thank you for taking the time to write these letters. My literary skills are obviously not as eloquent as yours. I truly appreciate what you are trying to do for all of us.

[Ektarr]

Piffle, Doc. Just write it from the heart and your meaning will come through.

Remember The Little Prince: "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly . . . what is essential is invisible to the eye!"