Letter to an anti-gunner - please review

M

MicroBalrog

New member
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Renewing ban on military-style assault rifles needed: A response from Israel
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 06:22:11 +0200
From: MicroBalrog <protector@keepandbeararms.com>
To: slyon@lahontanvalleynews.com, SDNetwork@topica.com


Good day, Sir!
I am Boris Karpa, citizen of the State of Israel and President of the Self-Defense Network, an international group dedicated to the furthering of the right to Self-Defense. I have recently read you article, entitles "Calling the NRA's bluff" (at http://www.silive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/108868992134680.xml ). I have certain issues with it's content. Let me elaborate:

1) In your article you write: "It doesn't take a Harvard math professor to validate the theory that banning certain assault weapons will reduce the frequency with which heinous crimes like the one in 1993 in San Francisco occur."

Well, that's patently untrue. Let me demonstrate.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crimes committed with so-called "assault weapons" actually increased after the ban was implemented. In 1991, 8 percent of criminals admitted to having owned a military-style rifle. Less than 1 percent had used it in the commission of their crime. (proof can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf )
In 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that about 2 percent of inmates had a military-style weapon during the commission of their crime. ( go and check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf for yourself if you don't believe me.) So how effective was the assault weapon ban again?

2)"True, there's always going to be nuts, but let's not give them unfettered access to assault weapons with the swipe of a credit card. "

And McVeigh killed, what, 150 people with fertilizer? Would it be OK for you to ban fertilizer?

3)"Even the staunchest, conspiracy-loving defenders of the Second Amendment are hard pressed to argue that depriving people of military-style assault weapons treads on their rights."

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

I am not being hard-pressed at all. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect civilian ownership of military weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that in US. vs. Miller, 1939, as it convicted Miller, deciding that his sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon.

" No, they certainly cannot when almost any citizen can walk into untold number of gun stores and buy from rack after rack of equally powerful guns."
Two questions for you.

a)If they are equally powerful, why ban one type and not the other?

b)According to your logic, Congress would not be infringing upon your right to free speech by banning the words "I hate Bush". After all you could have thousand of equally powerful ("I loath Bush") words to use, wouldn't you?

4)" U.S. citizens don't get to own hand grenades, and they shouldn't own military-style assault weapons. "

They do. Pay the ATF a Class III tax ($200), walk out with a howitzer. Check the laws. Go to Knob Creek. ( http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/ )

5)"Show me someone who says they need assault rifles for sport or hunting and I'll show you someone who really isn't much of a sportsman."

First of all, I'd like to see You, Mr. Lyon, compete in Practical Rifle with a bolt-action. ( http://www.practical-rifle.com/ )

Second, as a person who went to armourer's course in the Israel Defense Force and knows something about AR-15/M-16 rifles, I have to tell you, they are not for sport. They are for self-defense.
The light, low-recoil ammunition, ergonomic design, safety features, low price and large magazine capacity make the various military/paramilitary rifle perfect choices for the unexperienced shooter. The shop owner. The soccer mom. The newspaper editor. (this site explains it eloquently: http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/effective.html )

The Second Amenment, Mr Lyon, is not about huntin or shooting paper targets. It's about preventing people from hunting and shooting you.

Yours, Boris Karpa,
Ashdod, Israel

"Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
 
Looks good. Here are a few things I noticed in a quick scan...


I would delete this line in the first section:

"Well, that's patently untrue. Let me demonstrate."

You might also point out that, based on your figures, there has been a 100 percent increase in assault weapon usage since the ban!


"And McVeigh killed, what, 150 people with fertilizer? Would it be OK for you to ban fertilizer?"


I believe it was 168, and I would call him Timothy McVeigh. You might also want to point out that many things which have no utility beyond recreation, like swimming pools, sports bikes and cars, alcohol and cigarettes are also purchased with minimal effort and have body counts that would put assault weapons to shame!


In paragraph three I believe you should change regulate to "regulated."

Delete "I am not being hard-pressed at all."



Change "The Supreme Court ruled that in US. vs. Miller, 1939, as it convicted Miller, deciding that his sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon." to: The Supreme Court ruled as much in the case of U.S. v. Miller in 1939.


Delete "wouldn't you" at the end of 3b.



I would delete paragraph 4 all together.



I would change paragraph 5 to something roughly like this:

Clearly, Mr. Lyon, you know very little about modern firearms sports. Rather than bore your readers, I suggest you investigate the various types of rifle sports starting with this link: "http://www.practical-rifle.com."

Again, Mr. Lyon, your argument is simply a diversion from the real issue. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. The founding fathers of your country had the foresight to enshrine the inalienable human right of self-defense in your constitution. As a person who has lived surrounded by those who would take away my life, liberty and happiness, I can assure you that this right is more than a relic of a long-distant past.

Yours, Boris Karpa,
Ashdod, Israel

"Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)
:)
 
Greg, it's hard to tell which parts you're quoting and which ones are your changes. Could you use quote boxes please?
 
I didn't have any trouble following Greg's suggested changes. They seem reasonable.

MB, I'd refrain from referring to evidence as proof. I'm thinking the links you provide should be referred to, in your text, as evidence. Good letter.
 
Here is a rough revision with my changes...


Good day, Sir!

I am Boris Karpa, citizen of the State of Israel and President of the Self-Defense Network, an international group dedicated to the furthering of the right to Self-Defense. I have recently read you article, entitled "Calling the NRA's bluff" (at http://www.silive.com/search/index....68992134680.xml). I vehemently disagree with most, if not all, of your conclusions.

First, in your article you state that "It doesn't take a Harvard math professor to validate the theory that banning certain assault weapons will reduce the frequency with which heinous crimes like the one in 1993 in San Francisco occur." According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crimes committed with so-called "assault weapons" actually increased after the ban was implemented. In 1991, 8 percent of criminals admitted to having owned a military-style rifle. Less than 1 percent had used it in the commission of their crime. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf). In 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that about 2 percent of inmates had a military-style weapon during the commission of their crime. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf). Therefore, crimes with assault weapons actually doubled after the ban. Perhaps the math professors at your Harvard University aren't what I imagined?

Secondly, you state that "True, there's always going to be nuts, but let's not give them unfettered access to assault weapons with the swipe of a credit card." Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a simple fertilizer purchase and a rental truck. I know of no incident where a criminal has been able to approach this level of carnage with an "assault rifle." I would also like to point out that many things which have no utility beyond recreation, like swimming pools, sports bikes and cars, alcohol and cigarettes are also purchased with minimal effort and have body counts that would put assault weapons to shame.

Further, you contend that "Even the staunchest, conspiracy-loving defenders of the Second Amendment are hard pressed to argue that depriving people of military-style assault weapons treads on their rights." The Constitution, which you may know is a document that establishes the rights of American citizens, was amended to state that, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The purpose of this amendment was to secure the right of American citizen's to posses military weapons. This was a right that history had shown tyrants to abhor. And before you protest, you should know that your Supreme Court ruled this interpretation to be accurate in the case of U.S. v. Miller in 1939.

You continued, "No, they certainly cannot when almost any citizen can walk into untold number of gun stores and buy from rack after rack of equally powerful guns." First of all, if the matter was a simple as you imply the ban would not be opposed nor would it serve any, even theoretical, purpose. If they are essentially the same, what difference would it make to ban one and not the other? Interestingly, following your logic, Congress would not be infringing upon your right to free speech by banning the words "I hate Bush" as long as you have thousands of equally powerful ("I loath Bush") words to use.

You also argue "Show me someone who says they need assault rifles for sport or hunting and I'll show you someone who really isn't much of a sportsman." Clearly, Mr. Lyon, you know very little about modern gun sports. Rather than bore your readers, I suggest you investigate the various types of rifle sports starting with this link: "http://www.practical-rifle.com."

Finally and again, your argument is simply a facile diversion from the real issue. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or shooting paper targets. The founding fathers of your country had the foresight to enshrine the inalienable human right of self-defense in your constitution. As a person who has lived in a land surrounded by those who would take away my life, liberty and happiness, I can assure you that this right is more than a relic of a long-distant past.

Yours, Boris Karpa,
Ashdod, Israel
 
5)"Show me someone who says they need assault rifles for sport or hunting and I'll show you someone who really isn't much of a sportsman."

First of all, I'd like to see You, Mr. Lyon, compete in Practical Rifle with a bolt-action. ( http://www.practical-rifle.com/ )

Second, as a person who went to armourer's course in the Israel Defense Force and knows something about AR-15/M-16 rifles, I have to tell you, they are not for sport. They are for self-defense.
Click to expand...


Too indirect. You need to DIRECTLY AND FEROCIOUSLY attack the stupid idea the 2A is about sport shooting. You dilute that by your reference to Practical Shooting sports. Leave that out completely. I don't WANT my right to do Practical Shooting contests protected, I want my right to be as well armed as government troops protected. He's sidetracked you with this - don't let him!

Drop the comment about the M-16 - he knows that already, that's why he wants them banned.



Now from Greg's (otherwise excellent) re-write:

The Constitution, which you may know is a document that establishes the rights of American citizens,
Click to expand...


No, sir! The Constitution does no such thing! It recognizes pre-existing, inalienable human rights. It does not establish any rights.


I would also like to point out that many things which have no utility beyond recreation, like swimming pools, sports bikes and cars, alcohol and cigarettes are also purchased with minimal effort and have body counts that would put assault weapons to shame.
Click to expand...

I might add a direct question to this clown: "If you are so concerned about needless deaths, why aren't you tryihng to do anythhing about these far more deadly things? Is it because you really care more about controlling the populace than about human life?"



A couple of minor points on English usage:

I have certain issues with it's content.
Click to expand...

That should be "its" - no apostrophe. "it's" is an abbreviation for "it is". The correct form for the posessive is "its".

But I agree with Greg - his version is much better. The word "issues" is commonly - and incorrectly - used these days as a mealy mouthed way of saying "disagreement". Don't do that. Disagree.



Good job, MB.
 
Drop the comment about the M-16 - he knows that already, that's why he wants them banned.
Click to expand...

First of all, I sent this off before I posted it here. :)

Second, I am not willing to lie and say that the AR-15 is a "sporting rifle".

It is primariliy a paramilitary weapon. It enables you to do almost anything a person can do with an M-16 (save the full-auto function, and then it's nearly as useless as the bayonet lug :) ). The AR-15 allows you, effectively, to be the tactical equivalent of a government soldier. That is why we need AR's in the first place - because they are defensive weapons, good for both personal and common defense.
 
Originally posted by Quartus:
The Constitution, which you may know is a document that establishes the rights of American citizens, ...
Click to expand...


No, sir! The Constitution does no such thing! It recognizes pre-existing, inalienable human rights. It does not establish any rights.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I missed that one. Although it could be argued that some rights are established. No? As in limiting unreasonable search and seizure and other abuses? Good catch for the 2nd though, Quartus.
 
"No, sir! The Constitution does no such thing! It recognizes pre-existing, inalienable human rights. It does not establish any rights."

While I agree with you, in a sense, good luck arguing your "pre-existing, inalienable human rights" before a court. Clearly the Constitution does establish these rights for all practical purposes. Also, if the Bill of Rights doesn't establish any rights, where did the 7th, 9th and 10th Amendents come from? Clearly, you need to point to something other than natural law theory. Further, you might have noticed I dropped in a little natural law rhetoric later in the letter:

"The founding fathers of your country had the foresight to enshrine the inalienable human right of self-defense in your constitution."


So I agree with you, but you need to cover both angles.
 
MicroBalrog,

I think he was just saying you shouldn't make his argument for him. Plus, I think of the AR-15 is more of a sporting weapon than a military weapon. Still, the hair-splitting involved shows how pointless the distinction is to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top