California - -(Ammoland.com)- Sen. Feinstein,
While we, the people, have limited (severely) respect for your opinion, we feel at this time it is best to tell you the true nature of our opinion. You say it is in the best interest of the people to implement an “assault weapons” ban. Well we, the people, disagree. You have been re-elected time and time again because California is a primarily democratic state, this we understand. Your job is to serve the interests of the people but you, madam, are serving the interests of your party and your agenda. You are one of a few chosen to represent the people of the state of California. We do not feel as though you have any interest representing us. You have a personal vendetta. While you make it sound reasonable by exploiting the deaths of innocent victims, it is nothing more than an action against the rights of law abiding citizens.
Your blanket solution is to ban “assault weapons”, but your bill includes a list of over 150 different types of guns and their variants. Anything with a pistol grip is, under your bill, considered highly dangerous. A pistol grip does not change the functionality of the weapon. It simply makes it easier to hold. You focus on the weapon instead of looking at the cause and your apparent lack of understanding that guns do not commit crimes by themselves is disturbing. We have a severe lack of mental health care in this country, especially here in your home state of California. Mental health care is almost non-existent. You want to solve this problem? Then may we suggest you start there. There is also a deplorable lack of attention to our penal system. We let violent offenders out early and don’t have enough parole agents to keep proper tabs on them. This is a big problem.
Let’s not kid ourselves here, the vast majority of criminals get their guns illegally. The vast majority of gun violence is committed with hand guns. Chicago and New York have the highest violent crime rates in the nation concurrent with some of the strictest gun control. We fail to see how any of what you have done recently has worked to solve any of these problems. May we remind you of the last “assault weapons” ban, during which the following school shootings and mass shooting incidents happened:
- Feb. 2, 1996 Moses Lake, Washington. Two students and one teacher killed. (3)
- Feb. 19, 1997 Bethel, Arkansas. Principal and one student killed. (2)
- Oct. 1, 1997 Pearl, Mississippi. Two students killed. (2)
- Dec. 1, 1997 West Paducah, Kentucky. Three students killed. (3)
- Mar. 24, 1998 Jonesboro, Arkansas. Four students and one teacher killed. (5)
- Apr. 24, 1998 Edinboro, Pennsylvania. One teacher, John Gillette, killed. (1)
- May 19, 1998 Fayetteville, Tennessee. One student killed. (1)
- May 21, 1998 Springfield, Oregon. Two students killed. (2)
- Apr. 20, 1999 Littleton, Colorado. Twelve students and one teacher killed. (13)
- Nov. 19, 1999 Deming, New Mexico. One student killed. (1)
- Feb. 29, 2000 Mount Morris Township, Mississippi. One student killed. (1)
- Mar. 10, 2000 Savannah, Georgia. Two students killed. (2)
- May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Florida. One teacher killed. (1)
- Jan. 17, 2001 Baltimore, Maryland. One student killed. (1)
- Mar. 5, 2001 Santee, California. Two students killed. (2)
- Mar. 30, 2001 Gary, Indiana. One student killed. (1)
- Oct. 28, 2002 Tucson, Arizona. Three professors killed. (3)
- Apr. 14, 2003 New Orleans, Louisiana. One student killed. (1)
- Apr. 24, 2003 Red Lion, Pennsylvania. One principal killed. (1)
- Sept. 24, 2003 Cold Spring, Minnesota. Two students killed. (2)
Feb. 27, 1997 North Hollywood, California. Eleven police officers and seven civilians injured (18, injured). While no one was killed but the two suspects, this shooting incident serves as a fantastic example that gun control laws are ineffective.
That’s a total of 48 people- men, women and mostly children, WHOSE DEATHS WERE NOT PREVENTED by the existence of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. A duplicate of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, currently in place on the Connecticut law books, also DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT THE SLAUGHTER OF 26 INNOCENTS- meaning that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has failed to prevent a total of 74 deaths during its tenure. Now, we have heard arguments that the Newtown shooting only happened because the weapons were carried across state lines. May we remind you and your party that it is illegal to transport firearms across state lines as defined in The Gun Control Act of 1968. That law also did nothing to prevent the tragedy in Newtown.
Furthermore, we would also like to provide you with some information on gun owners stopping these incidents from happening or preventing the shooters from inflicting further damage and death.
- Oct. 7, 1997 Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi. Stopped by Principle Joel Myrick with a Colt .45.
- Aug. 23, 1995 Muskegon, Minnesota. A jewelry store owner shot four times in the back managed to retrieve a shotgun and fire back causing the suspect to flee the scene.
- Dec. 9, 2007 New Life Church, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Stopped by former police officer and CCW holder, Jeanne Assam. She had to shoot the assailant 10 times before he stopped shooting.
- Jul. 7, 1999 National Shooting Club, Santa Clara, California. A gunman was brought down and held at gun point until police arrived by gun store employee carrying a concealed .45 caliber handgun. No one was injured but the gunman.
- Jul. 13, 2009 Golden Foods Market, Richmond, Virginia. A gunman entered the store, shot and wounded the clerk, and fired at several of the store patrons before being wounded and subdued by a gunshot from a CCW permit holder who was in the store.
The list goes on and on. It is sad that these incidents are not covered the way other shootings are. Concealed carry and well trained gun owners save lives everyday. But this is not hyped the way the it should be.
You also have mislead your own party members and the people who support you by allowing the media to falsely present the Bushmaster AR-15 as being the same type of weapon as an M-16. In fact, many of the people who support you and strict gun control believe that an M-16 IS an AR-15. As a self proclaimed expert on guns we’re sure you must know the difference. The M-16 is capable of going full auto and is a Class III weapon that requires an extremely thorough ATF background check, extensive training and a Class III license. Machineguns like the M-16 are banned as defined in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and its subsequent amendment in 1968. An AR-15 is not capable of going full auto. It fires one bullet per trigger pull. It is mechanically and functionally no different than your run of the mill semi-automatic hunting rifle. The differences are entirely cosmetic. It looks scary. I understand your choice in choosing this particular gun to parade around in the public eye. It does look scary and to those less educated in the world of guns it looks like an M-16 so it must do the same thing. You know differently and so do we. A blanket ban of these personal defense weapons you have demonized and lied about will not serve to combat the problem of mass shootings in America. It is the peoples opinion that gun free zones, such as Sandy Hook Elementary and the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, are a detriment to public safety. The children of politicians have the luxury of attending schools with armed guards. Why are our children not afforded the same protection?
There are already several schools in Texas and Utah that have implemented policy and require some staff members to go through training, have a CCW and carry while on campus. All of this has been working without incident. Why is this not being considered as a option? We can tell you why. It is because you, Mrs. Feinstein, along with others, are trying to keep the focus on the gun rather than the solution. Our nation and your state are in a budget crisis. Gun control laws serve only to further the problem. The money being spent on gun control could easily be put into a much more effective plan.
We, the people, are appalled by your actions and very apparent lack of respect for the opinions of the people you serve. Your blanket letter is proof of that. We understand that you are a very busy women and with all the opposition amongst we , the people, that it is not possible for you to sit down and read and answer all of the millions of letters you receive personally. We agree that that is quite impossible. However, your general response letter has an argumentative tone. To us it sounds like you are very set in your opinion and are not interested in what we have to say. It’s kind of like when a child asks their mother “Why?”, and the response is “Because I’m your mother that’s why.” Well Sen. Feinstein you are not our mother. You are an elected public servant. You are a representative of the people. In your letter you use the phrase “It is my opinion.” Well, madam, we do not pay you for your opinion. We pay you to represent our opinions. There is a difference.
Your forty years in politics is irrelevant. During your time in Washington you have done nothing to represent the people as a whole. You have furthered your party, your own personal vendettas and yourself. Let’s not forget that nasty mess with your investments a few years ago. You know, the crimes you’ve committed that have since been legalized. How you have remained in office in all these years in a mystery to many of us. But to some you must be very personable. So, Sen. Feinstein, it is our duty to inform you that we have had enough of you and your agenda. We, the people, will not let you continue to dissect our bill of rights, a document that represents the whole, to appease and emotions and desires of a few. If you push through any more oppressive gun control laws, either federal or in California, you will not be re-elected or allowed to keep your current position.Regards,
We, The People
Names are as follows:
If you would like to add your name to the letter visit the Californians Opposing Gun Restrictions Facebook page found here: http://www.facebook.com/CaliforniansOpposingGunRestrictions