Posting opinions, letters and correspondence from far and wide. Even some to/from my elected representatives.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Letter to Congressman Himes - Gun Control Bill H.R. 45

Dear Congressman Himes,

I DO NOT SUPPORT H.R.45, the Firearm Licensing bill (2009). And to be quite frank I am already tired of seeing me and my fellow citizens rights being truncated and interfered with by an overbearing, out of control Federal Government which you sir are part of.

You should vote NO on this bill. However, the problem with you and your office at this point is that you are not making your views made public on virtually any bill that comes before either the Senate or the House. I have called your office just prior to votes being held on numerous different bills and in EVERY case, your office would not make your voting intentions known. So what is your position on this bill?

Frankly, if you cannot make your positions known and you then vote “yea” on this bill or any bill of this type, I will be ever more motivated to ensure that you are out of office at the next election.

There are currently over 20,000 existing gun laws on the books and most of them do nothing to stop or curtail criminals. Reducing restrictions to lawful gun ownership, however, have proven to do just that. Statistics are clear. Wherever lawful gun ownership flourishes, crime rates, by whatever measure, are reduced. In states with lawful handgun carry laws, crime rates are lower. This includes Connecticut. The rate of crimes committed by lawful owners of firearms is a very small percentage of the overall rate of crimes committed with firearms and those numbers are undeniable. The federally required NICS is an excellent tool in determining the eligibility of an individual to legally purchase a handgun or rifle. In the city of Kennesaw, Ga., just outside of Atlanta, it is required by law that every home have a gun. After that law was passed in 1982, the crime rate immediately dropped by 89% and has remained among the lowest in the state ever since. Instance after instance shows that high legal gun ownership relates to lower crime, and places that make it hard to own guns or ban them altogether relates to a higher crime rate. Look at many of the larger, supposedly progressive cities and states in our northeastern U.S. Many have some of the highest rates of gun crime there simply because the criminals know there is little chance of being confronted by a law abiding gun owner.

Stop criminalizing the lawful and law abiding gun owners. The studies by Department of Justice themselves show that such weapons are used in a statistically insignificant portion of crime. And when they are used, their use would not have been prevented by the legislation.

History and statistics both prove that such bills are destructive to the citizenry. If this bill's purpose is to truly "protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death" then the Congress should realize that the only threats to the public are from a criminal element that this bill (unlike others that already exist and are not enforced) will not address, and from the government itself. I would like to think it would not happen here, but as the government is getting larger, and the people weaker, we should always consider history.

* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million "Uncle Joe" starved to death in the Ukraine.

* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Germany established gun control in 1928. In 1938, the Nazis extended that control to ban the possession of military style weapons and to outlaw the sale of any weapons without government approval. (This sounds a lot like some of the current gun control efforts being pushed for in our country today.) From 1939 to 1945, the Gestapo & SS killed millions of people unable to defend themselves.

* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million.

* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million "educated" people unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Defenseless people rounded up & exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.

* During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor, had attended Harvard University from 1919 to 1921 and was a Naval Attache to the U.S. from 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. and knew that almost all households had guns.

* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation... since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed; There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the Elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort & expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

* The exact same terrible result over gun control is occurring in Britain where crime statistics are also, year and year, showing dramatic increases in violent criminal activity.

So - With guns.... We are "citizens" - Without Them.... We are "subjects".

WE THE PEOPLE do not give our government the right to track our every movement and location, registration of our personal property, track commerce of our personal property, keep our personal identification information (or property {whether firearms or ammunition} or possessions) in a federal or state database, the federal government to run laws in our state or local municipalities, or confiscate our firearms for any reason. We are not criminals, and WE THE PEOPLE do not give the government the right to treat us as such.

I, as a more recent naturalized United States Citizen (ex Australia), have still have some faith in the honor, dignity and leadership of our elected representatives. I personally see my right to bear arms as a right that should not be infringed. Since I lived through the gun confiscation that occurred in Australia, I know exactly what gun control does to society. It provides criminals with less reason to not commit crimes. It enhances their ability to perpetrate crimes. The gun control bill H.R. 45 is yet another assault, not on crime and not on criminals, but on yours and my personal liberties and our right to personal protection and self defense. But you get Federal protection if threatened – while my family and I DO NOT.

ATTRIBUTION: A large section of this letter was derived from which was so well written that I chose to borrow heavily from it. However, I hope you would understand that this in no way diminishes the importance or truth of the points made.

So I urge you to make clear your position on this bill and to vote no which is the right and proper position to take in this matter.

I appreciate your time and thank for your reading this letter. I look forward to hearing from you regarding any of the points I have made. I trust that you will respect the right to privacy and the right to self defense and the right to personal protection. In other words, you would be doing your job, which is to represent and protect the rights of the Connecticut citizens that voted you into your position.

Yours sincerely,

Michael A Hawkins

No comments: