A letter to the President about his unconstitutional goals.

Interesting thoughts from a witness to criminal homicide and survivor of a murderous attempt on his life.

He urges the President to take the long view. Undoubtedly, this is plastered all over the MSM outlets, right? Will the President see the light? People are speaking with their pocketbook. Firearms and ammunition are on backorder and prices are through the roof! Have the People, the master of their government, spoken and does their distant and far removed government hear them?

We have politicians telling people to use ballpoint pens for defense and to discharge double barrel shotguns from balconies if they are concerned about a suspected home invasion...the lunacy of gun control is often if not always apparent to all except those who really can see the Emperor's new clothes.

 

My response to the letter:

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

This will make such guns more expensive and more difficult to obtain, and possibly out of the reach of the nutjobs like the guys who shot up Colombine.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

We certainly waste money on less important things than gun control. The so-called drug was being exhibit A.


Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

We should have universal registration. The fear based argument that that will lead to universal confiscation is no more valid that an argument that universal driver's licensing will lead to universal confiscation of cars.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Another resort to irrational fear. But no one is proposing to eliminate guns.

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

This is an argument that since enforcement isn't perfect we should just not try to criminalize the activity.

It would be like arguing that despite the ban on murder, thousands are killed each year, so we might as well do away with making murder a crime. The fact that the law isn't enforced purposely doesn't not logically mean it has no effect at all.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

The fact that gun nuts are buying more guns and ammo to make themselves feel safer is no proxy for what the majority of Americans want.


Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Good point. They should be limited to 5 or 6 rounds.

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?


We don't, which is why we should try to make it harder, not easier, for criminals to get their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

The guy lets his political ideology show. The Govt has been regulating guns in one way or another for centuries.

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

The guy is showing his true politically ideological motivation now. He just doesn't like Obama.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

Thanks, but I'll pass on a law that allows some gun not with an automatic weapon he bought cheap and Wal-Mart with a 30 round magazine marching into my kid's classroom whenever he feels like it. You nut.

This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Well sure. Arm everyone with automatic weapons. Shoot, let them carry hand grenades too. Just the ticket for a safe and secure America. Shoot, it worked in Iraq.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.[/i

Mr. President, just ignore this nut.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen,

Iriemon

 

I didn't realize being shot at instantly made a person more qualified to speak about gun control legislation, politics and criminology than legislators, politicians and criminologists... I wonder what other super powers are bestowed by surviving a gunshot wound...?

It's sickening that he's now making a living capitalizing on that experience.

 

He is not qualified to express his opinion? Just because he disagrees with you?

Sad

 

He's no more but also no less qualified the the morons in DC, or on this board for that matter, who talk about gun control and guns but don't know s#!t about them.

The left has absolutely room to talk about capitalizing on horrific events. That is all the whole gun control movement is about.

 

...and Michael Moore and President Obama exploiting the death of innocents for their selfish desires and personal gain?

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Agreed, gun control (other than the round ending its down range journey in the intended target) is a waste. Drug...what you talkin' 'bout Willis?

You are for licensing a right? A slippery slope indeed IrieMom. Being licensed to operate a motor vehicle on a public way is a privilege, firearms, on the otherhand, are an inherent component of the right to keep and bear-no comparison. Private, personal property should remain just that...private. Lists are excellent records of who has what and where to go to find that what.

Check out Senator (I ain't no) Ma'am's desire in her weapons ban bill (Obama called for this during the 2012 debates). She has long wished to confiscate Mr. & Mrs. America'a firearms...think that was a statement she made for Sixty Minutes once. A bitter old progressive walking about with an armed security detail when needed.

Murder is a crime, there is a law against that act. The only gun law I would propose is that no one may bear a firearm with the intent to commit a crime with it.

Wow, what a bigoted and racist mindset! Americans are purchasing these items because it is their right to do so. Besides, don't you know that Obama and Biden are firearm advocates? The MSM shared pictures of our Prez shooting birdies and the interview of the Vee Pee recounting the tale of telling his bride to go and discharge on the balcony...The Big Pro-Constitution Duo...with their armed security and men willing to take a bullet for them...progressive demi-gods. Of course they need and deserve their security details because they are more important than other Americans.

No, not really. But perhaps a good choice for you.

Not at the expense of the rights of the law abiding.

Governments have done many things over the ages, so your point is bend-over and pant?.

How biased of you, Obama wasn't mentioned in that quote.

R-i-i-i-ght, because laws prevent murders especially in places where law abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying a weapon in defense of life. Does the President's security detail carry firearms when he visits schools? Did those firearms do bad things?

High ho, high ho, and to childish hyper bole you go.

What do you find so appealing about the President and the circumstances he surrounds himself with? An economy creeping along when he was so focused on job creation in his first term that culminated in the ACA (aka Obamacare). He is focused on job creation again and we are debating gun control and immigration. He uses props from children to cops and firemen while vacationing, golfing, B-ballin', surfin' etc. as gasoline nears four dollars a gallon. Does Nero come to mind? If Bush was in the Whitehouse there would be hell to pay but because its Obama its acceptable...just bizarre. Where's Dick NiXon when you need him?

 

Agreed that Michael Moore is a morbidly obese (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
Can you illustrate exactly what personal gain Obama has gleaned from the deaths of others?

 

There's a world of difference between "expressing an opinion" and writing a letter to the president and sending a copy to the media for distribution so that it can be quoted as scripture by nutbags who don't realize your opinion isn't worth any more than the opinion of anyone else.

The fact that you don't understand this is what's sad.

 

Sad that you shrink from your oath.

 

No, but its an open secret if you open your eyes.

 

So you think there should be limits on how a citizen chooses to express his/her opinion? The media doesn't have to distribute it, the President doesn't have to acknowledge it.

Apparently you don't believe in freedom of speech.

sad

 

What are you talking about?

There's a world of difference between some d0uchebag being able to say whatever he wants, and having the expectation that he's some sort of expert because he was shot once...
I never said he can't express an opinion, I just don't think he's an expert who should be put on some sort of pedestal.
What oath did I ever take that says one uneducated person's opinion is worth more than another?

 

As previously mentioned, express your opinion all you want... Just don't expect to be put on a pedestal as if your opinion is actually worth more than the opinions of other amateurs around you.

 

I missed the part where he was expecting to be put on a pedestal.

Your objection is based on your political disagreement with his opinion, you would have lauded him if he expressed the view you favor.

 

Those who disagree with your support of the government's objective to usurp the rights of law abiding citizens are not placing themselves on a pedestal, think of it as more of a modern day electronic town crier's box, more of a free speech idea, a warning...not unlike the historical 'the British are coming' caveat.

Why the malice directed at someone who was shot as a kid? People with the intent to take his life failed...better that you would chastise their failing than this fellow's survival. Did you ever stop to think that he might have first person knowledge about gun free zone violence during gun bans? Would someone that had that experience, from his perspective, be compelled or feel a responsibility to keep others from the conditions that would lead to that deadly fate?

"...support and defend...will bear true faith and allegiance..." empty noise to those who only mouthed the words, devoid of commitment, easily discarded and forgotten like the daily trash.

 

Given that there were armed professionals on site when he was shot, I don't acknowledge the area was a "gun free" zone.
I'm glad he survived, I just don't believe survival makes his opinion worth any more than anyone else's. How is this a violation of any oath?

I understand you're desperate to discard any opinion that's different to your own, which is why you're resorting to ad hominem argument, but you'll have to actually make a valid point in order to do so.

 

The armed "professionals" were in a car across the street eating lunch, not on site.

 

IF this is true, it seems that poor management of existing resources is an issue. Not sure that a poorly managed environment is one that would be improved by giving everyone guns... You don't see many ranges (for example) that have poor management and stay operational for very long.

 

He is just as much of an expert as Gabby Gifford, and she is lobbying in front of the senate judiciary committee.

 

Anyone have any idea what this even means?

 

Yeah, how dare a member of the House of Representatives assume she be qualified to speak in relation to American politics...

 

Yet once again the Amazing Dogmatic Ignorance of the Kiss Obama's Butt Left shows up.

Harris and/or Klebold were given BMW's on their birthdays. They had more than enough money to buy guns.

Cite the clause of the Second Amendment that authorizes background checks and government PERMISSION for gun ownership. The Mayor will give you a hint: All that is covered in the phrase "shall not be infringed".

Let's list some of the things the government wastes money on, shall we?

The Social Security Ponzi Scheme.
The Social Security Ponzi Scheme buying four hundred MILLION rounds of ammo.
Queen Moochelle's trip to gate-crash the Oscars...not to mention all the people watching that foolishness.
Welfare checks and food stamps.
Farm subsidies.
General Motors.
"Stimulus" spending.
Big Bird.
Solyndra et al.
Feeding illegal alien invaders.
Foreign Aid to muslims.
Foreign Aid to Europe.
Foreign Aid to China.
that was just in case you didn't understand that ALL foreign aid is wasted.

It's amazing what the lefties refuse to learn from the history they themselves create. Gun registration is always the first step towards gun stealing. (Confiscation is both to big a word for anyone who voted for King Obama, Fascist and Tratior, but doesn't adequately describe the event.)

And the Ponzi Scheme People bought up four hundred million rounds because they like brass?

No, they were ordered to purchase that ammo because the Leftists have implemented a plan to deplete the national ammunition stocks in advance of their efforts to end the Second Amendment.

Good luck with that. The United States is neither the Weimar Republic nor Communist Russia, as much as you people wish otherwise.

No, it's an argument that stupid gun grabbing programs don't stop criminals from stealing guns or otherwise getting them when they want them. Since enforcement isn't POSSIBLE, why do you people insist on expanding the definition of "scary gun" to make more and more perfectly law-abiding citizens criminals if they own simple propery you're afraid off.

Instead of you trying to ruin the United States further, why have you moved to England, where you can be put in prison for defending your home against intruders?

 

It is sickening, isn't it, the people like King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, can use the parents and family members of children shot dead in liberal "gun free zones", as an argument for more gun grabbing, but people who personally survived a similar event aren't supposed to voice their own opinions.

Or didn't you believe the rest of us would notice the hypocrisy from the usual suspects on the Left?

 

Yes I do. You don't?