Published DateTo the editor,
If you have contacted a local or federal anti-gun representative regarding gun control, the response (if you get one) is canned. So I propose the following canned response to their canned response.
"By your canned response I see that you are marching in lockstep with the Obama administration on this issue. You say you strongly support the Second Amendment, but, as one who actually does support the Second Amendment, you must lack my level of conviction.
You source the famed 'Luntz Survey', as is every other anti-gun politician and member of the liberal media. It famously declares most NRA members as being for background checks for all purchases at gun shows. This study was paid for by a rabid anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The results being reported are based on the results of misleading questions. For example, most gun owners DO agree that gun sellers at gun shows should be required to perform background checks. That is because gun shows are vastly operated by gun DEALERS who are required by federal law to perform background checks. If the question had been more clear — had the respondents been asked if background checks should be required for all private sale transactions and transfers, including gifts and inheritances, (as is being proposed) the results of the poll would have been totally inverted, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns wouldn't have paid for Luntz's services in the future. When you see a poll, the first question should always be, 'who is paying for it, and why?'
You use the catchphrase, 'Gun Violence.' Come on. It is murder. It is violent, senseless, heartless murder. 'Gun Violence' PURPOSELY takes the focus off the crime and focuses the act on the instrument used, because that is the objective; controlling private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens (Republicans mostly, the people that voted against you, as you are surely aware.) It predetermines law abiding people as guilty for crimes they did not nor will not commit. It is like blaming the phallus of every man for the acts of a rapist — it makes no sense, it is illogical, it is bizarre — but with the media behind you there will be a certain level of success, especially with the Honey Boo-Boo crowd. And on a side note, why do we ignore the murders occurring in inner cities which account for the vast majority of crimes used in these statistics, yet exist in areas where guns are prohibited?
High capacity magazines... what is a high capacity magazine, besides what the anti-gun crowd define as such? Did we see a massive reduction in shootings after the '94 ban? How could Columbine have occurred? What happens to the millions of existing magazines after such a ban? What will prevent the bad guys from making them, or importing them — I mean, if people can bring illegal immigrants, pot, cocaine etc. into this country, why not guns and magazines? So what we have is simply an incremental step in disarming America. Hunting and shooting sports will be destroyed, self-defense will be hindered (surely we will not deplete the magazine capacity of those who protect our elected officials), the spirit behind the Second Amendment will be stomped on, and it will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop another school shooting. And when that next school shooting does occur, that incident will be exploited to take away 10 round magazines... then sniper rifles, scatter guns, Saturday night Specials, etc. We know the routine, this is about getting rid of guns, if we wanted to stop school shootings we'd protect our kids at least as well as we protect our money.
I'm sure this e-mail will have little effect on your opinion on the matter, you probably spent your life hoping for the opportunity to promote such an agenda. Just realize that as a constituent, I feel like you guys are blaming me, punishing me and demonizing me for the acts of brutal, horrible people to promote an agenda I see as tyrannical. And I have done nothing wrong besides lawfully utilize and embrace the rights handed to me by God and our founding fathers."