I borrowed a bit from Billy Shears, but improved upon some areas that I though were lacking some concept of the mental health field, and having uneducated folks make "lists" and such.
Here is my version..
"
I have refrained from writing to you on this matter before now, as it seemed only decent to wait a few days, unlike those who immediately leaped to politicize this horror in Connecticut. But having heard the increasing calls for gun control, and statements from prominent politicians that this represents “a tipping point,” I am compelled to write to you and express my vehement opposition to a renewal of the so-called “assault weapons ban,” or any other similar legislation. Why anyone imagines such legislation will be effective is a mystery I have yet to solve. As William Ralph Inge said, “It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while wolves remain of a different opinion.” Gun control laws, which will only be observed by the law abiding, amount to sheep passing a resolution in favor of vegetarianism. Yet criminals, who are prepared to break other laws, against murder, robbery, rape, and other offenses – laws which carry far greater penalties for breaking them than any gun control ordinance – are to be expected to balk at laws carrying or using guns because they have been outlawed? This makes no kind of sense.
Every year in this country, guns are used by law abiding people to defend themselves; even the lowest estimates put such uses in the hundreds of thousands per year. In 1994, the Department of Justice commissioned a survey which put the number at one and half million. Now, anti-gun zealots would put the ability of decent, law-abiding people at risk because of a single incident, horrific though it was, that cost a score of lives. I don’t say this to be callous or to make light of the lives lost at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. But these events are rather like plane crashes: both spectacular, headline-grabbing events, but both are rare, and the loss of life from other causes actually far outstrips them. Many people are afraid of flying, and news of an airliner crashing will feed that fear. Yet the fact remains that if you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles, you are far more likely to arrive safely if you get on an airliner than if you climb into the family car to do it. However, if the family sedan is hit by a drunk driver, no one outside your family and friends will probably ever hear of it. If the airliner crashes, on the other hand, the whole nation will. So, such spectacular events as plane crashes make the news, and feed people’s fears of flying. Yet all the while, vastly greater numbers of lives are lost in automobile accidents.
It is much the same with firearms. One spectacular, news-making tragedy like Sandy Hook feeds people’s fears of guns, and stokes the demand for gun control. But none of those laws will be obeyed by criminals or madmen, and may cost far more lives than they save when law-abiding people, who will comply with the new laws, are thereby disarmed. None of the proposals I am hearing would have stopped Adam Lanza.
A properly trained concealed carry permit holder -in this case- teacher, security, or school resource officer may have prevented, or minimized this tragedy.
Gun-free zones are delusional concept in false sense of security. Statistics prove this, as do such recent events. That is a related but different discussion.
Today I am writing to you to stand up for the gun rights of the law-abiding citizens.
I, and many others believe the United States Constitution is the most supreme document in the modern world.
According to the second amendment, we have a right to be armed against tyranny, foreign and domestic. To be armed, one must be able to be equally armed. Making illegal higher capacity magazines, and certain ergonomic and cosmetic features would halter the design of the second amendment.
Not only that, but we plain out have fun at the range with our guns, as we ought to be able to.
But I realize that you and your colleagues in Congress are under tremendous pressure to do something. But I implore you to resist the knee-jerk calls for actions that will not have the slightest positive impact, and instead focus your efforts on achieving something that will help. The real problem that needs to be addressed is with the deranged individuals who commit these crimes.
Myself and many other believe some very simple yet highly effective measures could be standardized with the NICS background check system, and state level mental health records.
I am aware in some states, when a person is delayed for further review in the NICS system, the state has a process for sending relevant court and mental health records in for consideration.
I believe some basic factors should be standardized with this concept.
NICS should be able to access a basic profile on a persons mental health records, like they can conviction records, at the point of the call in, anybody that is deemed high risk, is immediately delayed, and the transaction is sent up for further review by someone with some unbiased education in the field of psychology.
If a person meets so much criteria, the transaction ought to be denied, much like a person with a felony conviction.
Then there is already an appeals process in place, that could be improved to include opinion of current or former medical care providers of said person, and friends and family, and local law enforcement Intel could be presented, and a formal process to solidify the denial, or put this person into a lower risk category, and proceed the transaction.
With such a measure, we need a system of checks and balances. We need to make sure that a regular Joe who sought treatment for depression 4 years ago, does not see his gun rights or other rights disappear.
We need to make sure unelected bureaucrats are not in a position to further an agenda that would take away the rights of for example:
A person who lost their spouse to cancer and had a nervous breakdown a few years ago, because instead of having the time to take off from work to properly heal and cope, they had to make a mortgage payment, keep working, keep going, and somehow make the income of one work with a planned life of two incomes and such.
Then you will have a solid achievement to point to when asked what steps have been taken to prevent another such tragedy as the one at Sandy Hook, and such a measure as this will not infringe the 2nd amendment rights of ordinary Americans, and will have the support of the NRA and other gun rights organizations, such as Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights, and Second Amendment Foundation. It’s a better idea, it’s politically feasible, and it’s more just. This is an opportunity to improve upon existing laws or look into the idea to enact laws that may actually work, instead of infringing on the rights of the people with ineffective and unwarranted false solutions that actually do more harm than good, and cost a lot of time and money.
If you recall the election that followed the passage of the ineffective and agenda-influenced "Assault Weapon Ban" of 1994.. EVERY gun owner in America remembered who had forsaken the constitution, and many were voted out. With modern technology, the internet, and social media.. the facts are out there, the statistics are out there, and so are the votes of every senator and congressperson.
I hope you take the opportunity to consider the facts, and get to the bottom, and offer some real solutions, if any. Banning inanimate objects from law abiding citizens does harm to the country, and the constitution.
Sincerely,
"