Sample Letter- Edit and Mail Out ASAP!!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Sample Letter- Edit and Mail Out ASAP!!

  1. Thumbs up Sample Letter- Edit and Mail Out ASAP!!

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Your Address and date

    The Honorable ________
    United States House of Representatives (or Senate)
    1127 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515-3313

    Dear Representative ___:

    I am writing to bring to your attention some concerns that I have regarding the issue of “gun-control”. There seems to be a coming tide of anti-Second Amendment action coming our way, from the views espoused by Attorney General Eric Holder, to proposed legislation H.R. 45, to recent comments by Bill Clinton calling for stricter "gun control". Let me please remind you that guns do not commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes. As an elected official representing the People of the State of _______, I respectfully request that you make the preservation of the Second Amendment a high priority during your tenure.
    Throughout history, great tragedy has always followed the disarming of civilized societies. I include examples of this fact below.


    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ------------------------------

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ------------------------------

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    ------------------------------

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
    ------------------------------

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ------------------------------

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ------------------------------

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -----------------------------

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    ------------------------------

    Australia recently confiscated all civilian firearms. It has now been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first-year results are now in:


    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

    Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria specifically, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Please note that although honest, law-abiding Australian citizens turned their firearms in, criminals did not. This should not surprise anybody. While figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms in Australia, the incidence of armed robberies has increased in the past 12 months, since Australian criminals are now guaranteed that their prey are unarmed.

    Here is another problem. In Washington, D.C., there is a movement underway right now to require encoded ammunition for all firearms. This is another sneaky way to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, and there are several problems with this. First, as with any “gun control” legislation, criminals will never respect such legislation, and this will open the door to a huge “black market for traditional, non-encoded ammunition. There are literally hundreds of billions of non-encoded ammunition already out there in society and easily obtainable. As we both know, habitual criminals do NOT use registered guns, nor would they use registered ammo. Encoded ammo is a serious, un-Constitutional invasion of privacy, in that the Government would know the exact amount and caliber of ammo purchased by private citizens. Any legislation that seeks to require encoding of ammo and destruction of all non-encoded ammo is in itself a form of gun control, in that if citizens have no bullets, their guns are useless.

    Our Founding Fathers established our country upon sound principles of justice and liberty. They displayed great wisdom in writing the Constitution’s Second Amendment, and they clearly stated that this right “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” With guns, we are “citizens”, as our beloved Founding Fathers intended us to remain. Without them, we are mere “subjects,” in which case America would instantly cease to be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

    I respectfully implore you to make a strong commitment to support our Constitution’s Second Amendment. I am an active member of the NRA, and there are untold millions of like-minded, law-abiding, honest United States citizens in America who, like me, take careful note of the responses of elected officials such as yourself. We remember these things when elections, such as the upcoming 2010 elections, arrive. There are, for example, a great many Pro-Second Amendment, Internet-based organizations, and the members of those organizations are constantly collecting and exchanging information regarding the positions of our elected officials in Washington regarding the Second Amendment. We take our voting seriously, and we hold our elected officials accountable to the promises they make.

    With this said, I request a timely, written response from you regarding your position on the issues I have thus addressed.

    Thank you kindly for your time, and may God Bless America!

    Sincerely Yours,

  2.   
  3. #2
    Before sending this you should double check the numbers. I vaguely recall something about these kind of numbers from Australia being bogus. If someone is going to send this the worst thing you can do is send it with bad statistics, that's the first thing the naysayers will latch onto.

    A word to the wise. Get the facts straight, everything right, cross all the "T's" and dot all the "I's" before sending it.
    John - KJ4NSE
    Member NRA | GCO | GOA | SAF | ARRL
    Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    +1. Agreed... I would definately research the Australian statistics and make sure you have the correct figures before sending out. Check Snopes.com or whatever but make sure any statistics used can be backed up with facts.

  5. Hi, I am new here, so please don't get too upset if the issues I bring up have been hashed out before, but here is my 2 cents on the subject. I believe there are 4 main reasons for gun ownership in the US, and maybe they should be mentioned in our correspondence to our elected officials.
    1. personal defence. A 4 minute response time for Police is considered to be good. Imagine how much damage a criminal with only a baseball bat can do to your family in 4 minutes. We can also mention all of the successful mass shootings in recent history have occured in "Gun Free" zones. We can go on to bring up events similar to those that occured in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. We can also cite the murder rate in England and how they are now arresting secretaries for carrying swiss army knives. This can go on forever.

    2. National Defence. We can mention the civilian's role in the founding of our country, the civilians on Flight 93 defending their homeland with their lives, and we can ask why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland. The Swiss have the lowest incedents of gun violence in the developed world with the highest per capita gun ownership, also, the Nazis didn't invade is a result of every adult male in the country having an assault rifle in their home. It would have been impossible to control. Add to that, by law, every adult male in the US between 18 and 45 is a member of the US militia

    3. Defence against Tyranny, as covered above

    4. One that I do not hear very often. Our Founding Fathers had a very strong sense of history and were all philosophers. They knew the only people, throughout history, guaranteed the right to bear arms were the Nobility, the ruling class. I believe the guarantee to Keep and Bear Arms to every Americas was a way to clearly demonstrait we are all of the Ruling class, not peasants to be ruled over. We are a people who control our own destinies.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Hi, I am new here, so please don't get too upset if the issues I bring up have been hashed out before, but here is my 2 cents on the subject. I believe there are 4 main reasons for gun ownership in the US, and maybe they should be mentioned in our correspondence to our elected officials.
    1. personal defence. A 4 minute response time for Police is considered to be good. Imagine how much damage a criminal with only a baseball bat can do to your family in 4 minutes. We can also mention all of the successful mass shootings in recent history have occured in "Gun Free" zones. We can go on to bring up events similar to those that occured in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. We can also cite the murder rate in England and how they are now arresting secretaries for carrying swiss army knives. This can go on forever.

    2. National Defence. We can mention the civilian's role in the founding of our country, the civilians on Flight 93 defending their homeland with their lives, and we can ask why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland. The Swiss have the lowest incedents of gun violence in the developed world with the highest per capita gun ownership, also, the Nazis didn't invade is a result of every adult male in the country having an assault rifle in their home. It would have been impossible to control. Add to that, by law, every adult male in the US between 18 and 45 is a member of the US militia

    3. Defence against Tyranny, as covered above

    4. One that I do not hear very often. Our Founding Fathers had a very strong sense of history and were all philosophers. They knew the only people, throughout history, guaranteed the right to bear arms were the Nobility, the ruling class. I believe the guarantee to Keep and Bear Arms to every Americas was a way to clearly demonstrait we are all of the Ruling class, not peasants to be ruled over. We are a people who control our own destinies.
    Good except point 4; the American right to bear arms finds its roots in the English common law (something well known and near and dear to the hearts of our founders despite what modern revisionist community organizers would like to think) and the historic right, at the time, of the common Englishman to bear arms.
    John - KJ4NSE
    Member NRA | GCO | GOA | SAF | ARRL
    Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    Good except point 4; the American right to bear arms finds its roots in the English common law (something well known and near and dear to the hearts of our founders despite what modern revisionist community organizers would like to think) and the historic right, at the time, of the common Englishman to bear arms.

    But that "right" had been granted and taken away numerous times in English history. The only ones who had been guaranteed that right throughout history were the Nobility (like right now it has been taken away). I believe our Founding Fathers knew this and were, in a backwards sort of way, saying we are all members of the ruling class, and have all of the privilages and resposibilities of rulers.

    Or I'm full of SH*&t and completely wrong :-)

  8. Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    Before sending this you should double check the numbers. I vaguely recall something about these kind of numbers from Australia being bogus. If someone is going to send this the worst thing you can do is send it with bad statistics, that's the first thing the naysayers will latch onto.

    A word to the wise. Get the facts straight, everything right, cross all the "T's" and dot all the "I's" before sending it.
    good point, thanks

  9. Statistics- Australia

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    Before sending this you should double check the numbers. I vaguely recall something about these kind of numbers from Australia being bogus. If someone is going to send this the worst thing you can do is send it with bad statistics, that's the first thing the naysayers will latch onto.

    A word to the wise. Get the facts straight, everything right, cross all the "T's" and dot all the "I's" before sending it.
    Just Found This:

    Crime up Down Under
    Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: March 03, 2000
    1:00 am Eastern


    By Jon E. Dougherty
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily.com




    Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
    After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

    The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

    Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


    Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

    Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

    Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

    In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

    In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

    There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

    At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
    Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

    Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

    According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

    And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

    Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

    Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

    "In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

    Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

    Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."

    Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"

    Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."

    Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

    Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

    "By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.

    Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.

    "Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

    Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

    "This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

    Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.

    "The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

    In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

    Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

    The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

    "Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

    Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

    In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

    Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.



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


    Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based writer and the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    But that "right" had been granted and taken away numerous times in English history. The only ones who had been guaranteed that right throughout history were the Nobility (like right now it has been taken away). I believe our Founding Fathers knew this and were, in a backwards sort of way, saying we are all members of the ruling class, and have all of the privilages and resposibilities of rulers.

    Or I'm full of SH*&t and completely wrong :-)
    Anything is possible ;-)
    John - KJ4NSE
    Member NRA | GCO | GOA | SAF | ARRL
    Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan View Post
    Just Found This:

    Crime up Down Under
    Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: March 03, 2000
    1:00 am Eastern


    By Jon E. Dougherty
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily.com




    Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
    After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

    The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

    Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


    Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

    Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

    Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

    In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

    In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

    There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

    At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
    Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

    Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

    According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

    And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

    Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

    Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

    "In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

    Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

    Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."

    Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"

    Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."

    Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

    Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

    "By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.

    Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.

    "Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

    Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

    "This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

    Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.

    "The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

    In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

    Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

    The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

    "Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

    Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

    In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

    Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.



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


    Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based writer and the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."
    Great find! I enjoyed the read as well. Thanks!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast