A letter to the Editor

C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Following is a draft of a letter/editorial that I'm considering sending to the Colorado Springs Gazette. Opinions, suggestions, etc are welcome.

BTW, I'm not worried about getting on the BATF s-list over this... I'm already there. :)

<center>
WHAT PART OF
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
</center>

When the Framers of the Constitution were drafting that noble document, they realized the importance of keeping government out of the everyday lives of peacable people. Indeed, the separation of the American colonies from Great Britain came about as a direct result of King George III's constant intervention in our private affairs.

As a reminder to future citizens, the Framers composed the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. This Bill does not enumerate what the government may do; rather, it very specifically states what the government may not do. It instructs all who would come after that they are to leave us alone, lest another tyrannical, oppressive government be forced upon us… just like the one they had left behind.

The Second Amendment was intended as a final safeguard against tyranny. When all else fails, as in the latter half of the 18th century, the people would have recourse to force of arms to rid themselves of a dictatorial power structure. If you doubt it, read the papers of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Tenche Cox, and Samuel Adams. You will see that all of them - every single one - advocated force as a last resort.

What's changed? Has the Constitution been repealed? Apparently so, according to the actions of our "elected" officials.

Try walking about the streets with a shotgun on a sling over your shoulder. Even 100 years ago, no one would have said a word. Now, you're likely to precipitate a riot… even if it's unloaded and not aimed at anyone.

Try sending a strongly-worded message on any topic to Congress, the Senate, the BATF, or the President, and see where it gets you. Jail, most likely, since you'll be considered a threat. So much for the First Amendment.

What happens if one of your neighbors tells the DEA that you're a drug dealer? You'll be lucky to survive their raid on your house. Whether you really are a drug dealer or not is irrelevant. Since the Fourth Amendment has been effectively repealed, you have no right to privacy or due process of law. Ask David Koresh. Ask Vicki Weaver. Ask Janet Reno. but don't expect a straight answer.

If we continue to allow the traitors in Washington DC to knowingly and willingly violate their oath of office - to uphold and defend the Constitution, not translate or ignore it - then what was once the greatest nation on Earth will be nothing but a memory suppressed by a dictator.

If we continue to allow the Constitution to be trashed, spit upon, and revised by the very ones whose job it is to defend it, then we'll be no better than the Good Germans of the 1930s… and there will be no one capable of fighting back on our behalf.

So what's it going to be, people? Are we going to be willingly enslaved, or are we going to take our country and our freedom back?


------------------
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day?
I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.
--Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
 
Great...
1st paragraph: spelling error peaceable

6th paragraph: Try calling your representative with an opposing view....more often than not you get hung up on....they don't even make a show of common courtesy anymore...thats some arrogance.

7th paragraph:
Pedro Obregon, the man in Texas who was killed by police on a completely unsubstantiated tip....Pedro had no political affiliations whatsoever...the archetypal "everyman"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I liked the letter, but I would check with the paper. More likely than not they have a 150-250 word limit on any letters to the editor. Been my problem here with the BEE.

Thanks,

Richard
 
Thanks for the tips. I'll wait for more reactions from the folks here, then fax the final version to the Gazette.

------------------
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day?
I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.
--Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
 
Very nice letter. If you can work it in, you might want to point out that government does not grant those Rights to us via the BoR, the BoR is supposed to guarantee them. Also, you might mention that all sorts of property confiscation occurs without due process, in direct violation of our Fifth Amendment Rights. But it's not necessary; the letter is quite worthy of publishing as it is.
 
Nice job Coinneach!

Any chance I might "borrow" some of this? There is a local paper, the Anderson Valley Advertiser, that is very inflammatory and has garnered quite a bit of fame in intellectual cirles nationally. The editor is somewhat middle of the road on RKBA, but has been stating lately that it is ludicrous to think "We" can defeat a tyrannical government. My response to this is that it is irrelevant and have been crafting prose for a response to his editiorals of late. Some of your fine work would be a welcome addition to my letter...

Regards,

JH

[This message has been edited by Mendocino (edited May 20, 1999).]
 
I read this topic last night and it caused me to lose some sleep considering it. I am a big believer in letters to the editor, have sent many of which a very few see light of day (not unexpected). Coinneach, I suspect one worded that strongly will not, which is not to say I think you should change it as that is caving in to PC bull and none of us should fall into that trap.

About letter length, I see that you've already considered suggesting it as an editorial. I did that once, with a huge letter, and (surprise) the rag not only printed it in its entirety, they printed it in the Letters column, taking up the ENTIRE column, only letter that day. Contrary to their stated policy. If anyone would like, I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

For anyone beginning a letter on this kind of topic, re BATF worries as well as sense, I suggest you include something to the effect of "I do not and never have advocated armed insurrection against this country I love so much." And that should be the truth unless you need a shrink. While I think it may get worse, the situation is not now anywhere close to that level. The only event worldwide in my memory which would have triggered that response in me was the 1993 shelling of the Russian Parliament by the Army on orders from Yeltsin. If that occurrence had come up in Washington, DC, I would have packed my guns in the car and headed for DC within about 10 minutes, just time to say goodbye to the wife and children. And unless a few million others came up with the same plan at the same time, uncoordinated and unplanned, I know I would not have come back. Of course, Russians are disarmed, wasn't a threat.

For Mendocino; I'd like to make a purely different suggestion for you (how presumptuous can I get?!) Having been through the argument several times, I would want to make a full frontal assault on that "ludicrous to think "WE" can defeat a tyrannical government" attitude. While that may seem cowardly since you would have ALL the ammunition it might actually change some minds real quick.

First off, there are an estimated 80 million gunowners in the US, if just one in ten stood up when the time came you'd have 8 million men armed with deer rifles headed to Washington, and that force could defeat any army that has ever existed on this planet, even if the confrontation was open instead of guerilla. But that is beside the point, actually. What they'd most likely be facing is not the Army (that's unconstitutional, I understand), but some quantity of the DC police (those who hadn't already joined them or run away) and some quantity of the Fed's forces such as FBI, ATF, Secret Service, etc (same), possibly the National Guard (same). The answer I always get at that point is "Yeah, but they can't possibly defeat tanks and air bombardment by the military". Which says the Vietnam experience hasn't been adequately studied, as they certainly CAN! But leave that alone, too, it's irrelevant and distracting.

To explain where I'm going here, let me grant the fact that the grabbers are undoubtedly the smartest people on the planet, knowing absolutely everything about a subject which they have not studied and in which they have zero experience. And that anyone who owns a gun is a stupid, murderous redneck. We all know that. But when it comes to actually DOING that grabbing, who do they (every one I've ever talked to) plan to have actually beating down the doors nationwide? SOMEBODY ELSE! Like our DDSIC (Draft-Dodging-Slimeball-In-Chief), we'll send people who actually understand the subject and who make their living with firearms to beat down doors and kill or die attacking law-abiding citizens who hold the same beliefs they themselves do. That means the stupid rednecks killing off the stupid rednecks either way, can Utopia be far behind? (And for some unfathomable reason they think those rednecks are going to obey that order.) Ourselves, we'll stay safe at home using our vast intellect to remain safely above the fray. Ain't gonna happen, folks. Doesn't even make any sense.

Example; in the recent hysteria over school shootings, one letter in our local fishwrapper was a woman offering to open her home to shelter the military while they conducted a house to house search for weapons. I sent a response saying she missed the point, what she should be considering was whether after a mere ten or twenty thousand people had already died in that effort, evenly divided between home invaders and law-abiding home owners, would she HERSELF like to pick up a gun and be the first one through the next door busted down. Wasn't printed, of course.

Now, I spent 20 years as an Air Force pilot. Fought in two wars in defense of my country's policies and am highly decorated and extremely proud of my service. But if I were an F-16 pilot sent to bomb 5 million armed American citizens marching to Washington to address their grievances as peacefully as possible, I would salute smartly and say "Yes, sir". Once in the air, if another aircraft were along (usually the case) and previous discussion told me he was gonna obey that order (not likely), I would maneuver behind him, tell him he was on fire, eject immediately, and then about 5 seconds later put a few 20mm up his tailpipe.

Then I'd start considering where those bombs which the government had so kindly given me were REALLY going to go. Once I had dropped them, I'd go find the encampment I was supposed to bomb and punch out over it, and once on the ground find out if anybody had thought to bring along a spare deer rifle. Sign me up. And what do you think is the possibility that the portion of the government which survived that would send out a couple more aircraft the next day? IOW, one man has just defeated the entire US Air Force as far as this scenario is concerned.

I suspect the other services would suffer the same exact problems, whether we are talking about tanks, battleships, helicopters or simple grunts. If you have only a band of 20, or even 200, then you are a fruitcake and the local police can handle that just fine, has happened several times in my life. If the military needs to be called in there is a serious problem and the citizens in or out of the military will have already been quietly choosing up sides. If the military actually IS called in, the results are quite possibly going to seriously shock the gun-grabbing intellectual elite.

That's my explanation for you; for inclusion in a letter, what I have used (printed, no one ever chose to even respond, maybe started some thinking) is something along the lines of; before you open the armories and begin issuing machine guns and live ammunition to the military and then send them out to fire up their powerful killing machines to attack peaceable citizens, you'd better think long and hard about which side the (overwhelmingly conservative) military man is then actually going to use them against. As the next-to-final act in the process which turns a civilian into a member of the military, he is required to sign a statement that he has read and understands the oath he is about to take. The final act is to raise his right hand and "repeat after me". It was 1969 when I did that, see if I thought it was a joke by my memory of that oath-right off the bat, first thing out of the box is "I, (your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." The Constitution, not the government. When I retired, no one ever released me from that oath, I consider it still in effect while I breathe. The President takes the same oath, btw, but of course he and most politicians are proven unprincipled liars with no shred of honor.

Some other suggestions I've had fun with in the past;

"Let's amend the Constitution to prohibit gun ownership!" While I consider that an honorable (albeit misguided) suggestion as opposed to the sneaky, lying, underhanded and unConstitutional subversion we've seen up to now, and would personally welcome a national debate on the subject of either eliminating OR STRENGTHENING the 2nd Amendment, I could foresee one possible problem. If you were successful in passing such an amendment, I am not at all certain that the courts would uphold any such change, as the Bill of Rights was clearly intended only as an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of natural, inherent rights which government would never have the power to either confer or remove, with or without an Amendment.

"If the majority of Americans want to confiscate firearms, then the majority rules and you'll just have to learn to live with it." No, actually I won't. And you might want to consider that if push comes to shove, it is the majority of Americans who are both armed and willing to kill and die for what they believe in which will rule, and you might not get the opportunity to live with it under those circumstances.

"If just one life is saved, confiscating guns is worthwhile". (Actually I have several different responses for that one, but the one in the same tone as this discussion goes as follows) I honestly believe that the process of ridding the United states of all firearms, besides being a bad idea to begin with, would (even if eventually successful) take near 100 years to complete and cost tens of millions of lives, both gunowners and Gestapo. If you are willing to do that to save that one life, why don't we start by promptly (like within a month) executing any person convicted of any crime involving the use of a firearm, as well as convicted felons found in simple possession of a firearm? And leave law abiding citizens alone with their rights intact? In other words, begin enforcing current laws against actual criminals rather than passing unenforceable new ones against peaceful citizens.

"That would never happen, all people would surrender their guns without a fuss." I, for one, will not. Which makes you instantly wrong. And I will not go quietly into that goodnight, but rage, rage against the dying of the light. That means that at least the first guy in my door will go with me. There are two innocent deaths of law-abiding people simply upholding their own beliefs, to counter your "one life saved". Is it still so obviously worth it?

"If you would really do that (which I don't believe), then you are a fool." Maybe so. I can certainly see how a snotty, self-absorbed coward such as yourself might not clearly understand what the term "patriot" means. But I can guarantee you I am not alone. And you'd better begin believing it, within a few decades at this rate, your life may depend on it.

Keep up the letters; to editors, congressmen, Slick Willie, everybody. That is where the battle for our rights belongs now, not in the street. And if you end up required to turn in your guns, simply don't. Called civil disobedience. All that comes before it's time to kill anybody.

Larry
 
In the past, I have written many letters to my local paper, the Arizona Daily (red) Star.
I don't know how many pro-gun letters get sent, but darn few are published. They are decidely anti-gun.
I recently sent one letter, which to my shock, they printed. I'll put it here. Anybody who wishes, may copy it and send it to whatever paper, or representative they wish.

Blame Movies, Media
Why is it, in the '50's, when you could buy a gun though the mail with little or no restrictions, there were no school kids killing each other? I bought several military surplus rifles and handguns through the mail. I don't doubt millions of people did the same thing. Yet there were no school shootings. What is different today?
I think movies, TV and the media are all responsible in pat for the problem. In the movies, Mel, Arnold, and Sylvester get their guns and kill all the bad guys. Kids see this, and in their minds this is a way to get back at someone who has done them wrong.
Look at some of the TV shows. Same thing. And the news media? Look at what happens every time something like Littleton, Colorado occurs. The media almost makes the perpetrators into some kind of anti-hero. They've finally gotten their fifteen minutes of fame.
One fact remains. Due to federal regulations, guns are not easier to get now than in the '50s Some state laws are even more restrictive than in the past. Yet these school shootings occur today and did not occur in the '50s when it was a heck of a lot easier to buy a gun. Why?
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Larry P.,

If it has not been done yet, welcome to the forum. Thank you for your personally insightful post and your committment to the Constitution. The diversity of opinion and thought here is always interesting, and speaking for myself, your's is very welcome.

JH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top