On 5 Feb., 2013 I sent the following email to all of my Congressvermin.
First, do NOT support, promote, introduce, or vote for any – that’s ANY – gun control measures. They will do no good to reduce crime, and will only expose those who vote for them as the fascist tyrants they strive to be.
Why do we fight against efforts to license or register our firearms? Why to we resist those that try to deny us our rights?...
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” Russian Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin.
Second, do NOT support, promote, introduce, or vote for any – that’s ANY – immigration legislation that does not close the border FIRST! We cannot possibly arrive at any intelligent solution of we can’t put them welfare as fast as they are coming in. CLOSE THE DAMNED BORDER!!!
Third, DO support, promote, introduce, or vote for any proposal, act, or legislation to impeach Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and/or Hillary Clinton. Obama and Clinton should be tried for treason and subjected to the death penalty. Biden is just too damned stupid to be in public off his leash.
Fourth, DO support, promote, introduce, or vote for any proposal, act, or legislation that calls for a balanced budget and cuts in federal spending. Our debt is 16 trillion dollars. Congress pats itself on the back for cutting a billion dollars. IT WOULD TAKE 16,000 – SIXTEEN FREAKING THOUSAND – ONE BILLION DOLLAR CUTS TO BALANCE IT OUT! If you can’t do this, you are not qualified to be in the US Congress, and should resign immediately.
Sincerely, your abused, misused, and damned well fed-up constituent,Rebsarge
This is the email response I received from Senator Tom Udall (D, NM), on 7 Feb.
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
The incomprehensible act of violence carried out at Sandy Hook Elementary School has left our nation with a profound sense of sorrow and questions about why these tragedies are occurring with increasing frequency. For answers, we must start by assessing our gun laws, how we treat mental illness in this country and the cultural desensitization towards violence. Meaningful action is clearly needed to protect our communities and to move forward. I believe that every idea should be on the table and will carefully consider any reasonable legislation that is crafted to help prevent future tragedies.
As Congress begins to consider related legislation, it is important to recognize that these debates often evoke strong responses because we are attempting to reconcile an individual's constitutional rights with society's interest in maintaining public safety and combating crime. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. I also believe that the Constitution gives us the right to own firearms for the protection of self, family, and property, and for sporting purposes such as hunting and target shooting. For generations, many New Mexicans have exercised this right in a responsible way, and they should be able to continue to do so. However, I also recognize that our communities have an obligation to protect citizens from senseless gun violence.
As a former federal prosecutor and Attorney General of New Mexico, my first-hand experiences with the numerous crimes committed with firearms led me to believe that these crimes are among the most heinous, and should be prosecuted as forcefully as possible. During my time in Congress, I have introduced legislation to appoint an additional Assistant U.S. Attorney for each jurisdiction to be focused solely on prosecuting gun crimes.
President Obama has announced a White House task force led by Vice President Biden that will make recommendations on gun related violence. I look forward to seeing these proposals. I am hopeful that working together we will achieve sensible solutions. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress looks for ways to address this issue and prevent this type of violence.
signed.... blah, blah... Tom Udall
This is my response to the Senator’s infuriatingly patronizing, myth- and error-laden letter:
Thank you for the prompt, if canned response to my email of 5 Feb.. I would like to offer comment on some assumptions, implicit and explicit, in your response.
Your first assumptions are implicit in this statement: [the Sandy Hook massacre] “…has left our nation with a profound sense of sorrow and questions about why these tragedies are occurring with increasing frequency.” First, the administration of Barack Obama, which includes all his lackeys and flacks, was NOT left with a sense of profound sorrow. They were left with a profound sense of elation at an opportunity to do something they’ve wanted to do for a long time. Like sharks smelling blood, they weren’t saddened, and to imply that they were is an obscene lie. People who are sad don’t lash out with irrational, pre-packaged hysteria. Those of us who value human life on an individual basis were saddened beyond measure, but the administration? Hardly.
Second, not all Americans are as totally baffled by this stuff as the administration would like us to believe they are. Many of us have a darned good idea why it’s happening: (1) because of gun-free zones, and the creation, by the Left, of a prey class in our society, and (2) because of federally-mandated neglect of mental health issues that make it impossible to interdict lunatics before they strike.
Your second assumption is explicit here: “For answers, we must start by assessing our gun laws…” Why? Why do you assume that the first category of answer is in gun control? This indicates to me that you, like the rest of the administration, were waiting for an excuse to deploy all of your prearranged, hackneyed propaganda bites. Can you tell me why gun control should be first? Why not crime control? Why not the mental health issues that you did toss in there almost as an afterthought? Your instantaneous assumption that gun control is the answer speaks volumes of your opinion of the American people and of the Constitution.
The rest of that paragraph – “…meaningful action is clearly needed…” and “…every idea should be on the table…” is political drivel – meaningless boilerplate intended to induce mental numbness and complacency. “Oh, it will be okay now. Senator Tom is going to take meaningful action and consider all ideas.” The content of your letter tells the truth: you are not going to take meaningful action to protect the American people, and you are not going to consider all ideas. You are going to do your level best to bash out the fighting teeth of the American people, to leave them prostrate before any assault, and the only ideas you are going to consider are those that tend in that direction.
Your second paragraph starts with an even more egregious assumption: “…we are attempting to reconcile an individual's constitutional rights with society's interest in maintaining public safety and combating crime.” Why is it assumed that there is a dichotomy between the rights of an individual and the safety of other individuals? After all, there is no such entity as “society.” Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals – in this case, certain individuals whose safety is apparently threatened by the rights of other individuals. What the hell do my constitutional rights have to do with crime? Do criminals do wrong because I am free? There is no such dichotomy. True safety is only found in freedom. The safety promised by the fascist, nanny state is a fraud; it only exists as long as some individual in the government chooses to let it exist. The assumption that freedom conflicts with safety, or that freedom promotes crime, is one of the most transparent and vile myths sponsored by despots.
Your second paragraph contains three more erroneous assumptions: “The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.” No, Sir. You are in error. The Second Amendment provisions the security of a free state through the mechanism of a well-armed population. The “law-abiding” bit was added in the belief that denying criminals legal ownership of firearms would keep them from committing further crimes. The futility and stupidity of such belief is all around us, and I defy you or anyone to support it.
This is at least identified as your own opinion, rather than being treated as axiomatic: “I also believe that the Constitution gives us the right to own firearms for the protection of self, family, and property, and for sporting purposes such as hunting and target shooting.” Well, Sir, the Constitution “secures” the right to own firearms WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT; protection of “self, family, and property” are valid and important results of that right. Sporting purposes do not even enter into the equation. I enjoy competitive shooting and hunting, but they are most emphatically NOT the reason I have guns. The sporting purposes argument has been used by tyrants for centuries. A man can be allowed access to a target rifle at a government range, where he must account for every round he takes out of the armory, but he sure as bloody hell doesn’t have the freedom to bear arms! The Constitution gives us the right to own firearms so we can ensure the security of a free state. That means the ability to shoot invaders or home-grown despots.
Finally, the last sentence in your second paragraph says that communities have , “…an obligation to protect citizens from senseless gun violence.” Where does it say that in the Constitution or any other book of common law? No, Sir, you are again in error. Communities have no such obligation. They have an obligation to provide a policing organization, (the function of which is almost exclusively to clean up after a crime and try find the individual responsible) and an obligation to get the bloody hell out of the way so citizens can protect themselves from senseless violence of all sorts, not just that involving guns.
Would you be happy, as your statement implies, with roving bands of muscle bound, drugged-out thugs, crushing skulls and raping and killing, as long as they don’t use guns? If communities are only obligated to prevent senseless gun violence, does that mean everything else is fair game? If your solution to gun violence is to disarm people, or disarm them to the point that they have no valid means of defense against a gang, then clearly, you would be okay with murder by ball bat or axe or noose, or…. Has it ever occurred to you that if you limit magazine capacity to, say 10 rounds, and a person is assaulted by 11 thugs, or even by three thugs and misses with eight shots, you have just sentenced that person to death? When Obama, Biden, and others wave a bloody shirt and whine, “If it only saves one life…” were they not talking about the life of the person they have condemned? Were they not talking about my life? Just whose life were they talking about? Are you really ready to throw your lot with men who think they are qualified to make such decisions for others?
Your third paragraph is one gigantic equivocation, mixed with propaganda and myth. Why is gun violence more heinous than any other? Ever see a child killed with a tire iron? Ever see a woman who had been hung from a tree by a meathook through her jaw and gutted with a common butcher knife? Ever see the corpses of an old man and woman, huddled in the fruitless attempt to ward off the blows and kicks that snuffed out their gentle and loving lives? When you say you were such a noble and benevolent guardian of “society,” what you really mean is that you didn’t give a rat’s backside about anything but criminalizing guns, and demonizing those who own them. A special prosecutor for gun crime? Here’s a suggestion: prosecute ALL violent crime, and get the damned criminals off the streets!
I will not dignify your fourth paragraph with a comment. Anything that comes of the collusion of Obama and Biden will be obscene.
Sincerely,your still abused, misused, and damned well fed-up constituent,