Why are you so bent on disarming the law-abiding American public?
First, why are you so bent on disarming the law-abiding American public? You have made many statements which I find disturbing and anti-gun.
You stated on 60 Minutes after the 1994 gun ban was passed, and I quote, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them (firearms), (having) Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.”
Recently you stated that you will pick the time and place with the new anti-gun administration in power to push your anti-gun agenda. The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you politicians not understand? The definition of “infringed” is to break or violate an agreement or law.
There is a document on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, printed on both sides, two inches thick published by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) that are laws and regulations of federal and state government that are infringements on the Second Amendment.
Yes, I have heard the argument that the militia is now the National Guard, or military reserves, however, the definition of a militia is a group of armed men between the age of 15 and 50 years to be used for the security of the state, who do not belong to a regular military unit.
The last I heard the National Guard and military reserves are regular military units.
In California, you can’t buy a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable high capacity magazine and pistol grip and, God forbid, a flash hider and bayonet lug. What is the difference between the described rifle and a semiautomatic Winchester Hunting Rifle with a 10-round, detachable magazine? They both can fire the same caliber cartridge, with the same muzzle velocity, with the same rate of fire.
You anti-gun people have infringed on my Constitutional right, just on appearance, nothing else. Yes, I have heard the argument that if the magazine is detachable and high capacity it has so-called increased firepower, but I fail to see the difference between firing 30 rounds from one magazine or three 10-round magazines, or three rifles with 10-round magazines.
There is an anti-gun myth printed that a home with a firearm is more likely to have a shooting than a home without a firearm. Using the same logic, a home with a private backyard swimming pool is more likely to have a drowning than a home without a private swimming pool, but I know of no anti-swimming pool groups.
What you anti-gun people fail to accept is that for every crime committed with a firearm, there are four to five crimes prevented because the intended victim had access to a firearm in the home, business or vehicle, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If the anti-gun people’s logic is correct, a place that has the most severe gun regulations and laws, a place where it is almost impossible to own a gun legally, would be the safest place to live.
Washington D.C. has the most severe gun regulations and laws in the U.S., however, Washington D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the nation year after year. States with the least restrictive gun regulations and laws, such as North and South Dakota and Texas, have the lowest crime rates.
So I ask again, why do you want to disarm the law-abiding American public?
If you are so bent on taking the legally-owned guns from the American public, why did you request and receive a gun permit in California in 1974? Yes, you returned your permit, but you now have armed protection paid for by my tax dollars, that I and others do not have excess to.
Finally, why is your protection more important than the protection of my family and me?
Gary Brown, military arms historian, lives in Nevada City.
