Mr politician, do you really care?

[Shane45 807]

I wrote this article over 2 years ago but never posted it or submitted it. I figure instead of just hitting the delete key Id post it up here. Maybe someone whil get a shred of inspiration out of it or something. For this audience id call it preaching to th choir .

[Shane45 807]

Do you as a politician really care?

 

I am writing this open letter to explore the logic behind why any politician would present or stand behind most gun legislation that has been presented.  So why would logic be the main focus of this discussion? The answer is simple. If you actually think through what a ban, restriction or law would accomplish, logic would indicate that there is little reason to support most pieces of anti-gun legislation.

                So let’s look at recently presented legislation. The Greenwald bill in particular will serve to illustrate this point. This is a bill created to reduce  the magazine capacity to 10 rounds in a state where the capacity is already limited to 15. To quote Mr. Greenwald , "If we can save even one innocent life through common-sense legislation like this, it will be worth it.". That is an interesting piece of logic right there. I think that logic follows a path to restricting just about everything in existence! Aside from the state’s tax revenue, how does alcohol and cigarettes still exist if that is the case? Another statement by Mr. Greenwald, "By re-instituting a reasonable limit on gun magazine capacity that has already been proven successful, we will save innocent lives." This is the statement that interests me most. I would LOVE to know where this was proven. In fact I would absolutely love to hear about just 1 single case where a restrictive legislation such as this one did anything to deter a criminal! This is the biggest flaw in that line of thinking.  A law is ONLY going to be followed by the law abiding citizen. Please submit for examination the sample case where, for example, a hard core criminal was deterred from robbing a bank at gunpoint because he had magazines that exceeded the capacity limit? So what did this type of legislation solve? Clearly no criminal is going to be dissuaded by the law. In fact the criminal seems to enjoy freedoms law abiding citizens dream of. The criminal goes unabated because he does not care what the law says. So legislation like this only affects those that follow the law and it is NOTHING more than harassment to the law abiding gun owner. It has NO effect on the criminal. This has been proven time and time again. But forget statistical data, anyone with common sense can see this clearly.

                The culture of New Jersey. I think that many politicians in New Jersey would simply faint if they were aware of what goes on in the rest of the country. Again, the fact of the matter is that law abiding citizens are NOT the problem. How come states that allow the ownership of FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS do not have an issue there? How come the news is not flooded with accounts of citizens that legally own machine guns committing crimes with them? So what’s the root problem here? It’s simple. The politicians raised here in the northeast, spoon fed a lifetime of the rhetoric, simply do not understand the truth behind firearms or even the fundamentals of the firearms themselves. They simply think the rest of the country is like here. They do not realize how different New Jersey’s laws are from the majority of states. I will stop here on this topic because it would quickly turn into a book instead of an article.

                At what point does it become safe? If we are to follow the line of thinking most anti gun legislators have, it would be the eradication of all firearms. If those that believe in the second amendment were to simply give in, my questions is, at what point would I be safe? What would that look like? Let’s look at a prison for a moment. Even officers cannot take their firearms with them into the prison. But there are many documented cases of criminals obtaining firearms even in prison!!! So is that what it would look like? A society with extreme security measures including strip searches that will still succumb to the determination of the criminal? The point that is so often lost on the anti gun legislator is that what has been created is a pool of victims. A criminal will still get the tools he will use in his crimes, but now you have taken away the law abiding citizens ability to defend his self.  One only needs to look to Australia to view the unintended consequences of such legislation. Violent crime skyrocketed! In our own country, the numbers seem to indicate that violent crime drops considerably in states that embrace the right to carry.

                So what is the answer? If there are much greater threats to a single innocent life out there, why are they skipped over? Some of the largest mass murders in American History were NOT committed with firearms! Lets review. Mille Eastern Terrorist hijacked airplanes and killed THOUSANDS of people yet we have laws in place to prevent profiling Middle Eastern men because we don’t want to infringe on their rights. The Oklahoma bomber used fuel oil and fertilizer and killed 168 people of which 19 were children. I don’t hear an outcry from politicians against fertilizer! It may surprise many to find out that the Columbine shooting was actually planned as a bombing but the devices failed. But certainly the common thread among them was determination and certainly no regard for the law. So as far as I can conclude, rational thought can’t be the motivation behind it so it has to be something else.

After watching a quarter century of the slippery slope of anti gun legislation, it’s my opinion that it comes down to a few possibilities. Irrational phobic fear is one. A perceived expectation by the politician to act is the other. In my view the phobia explains why in many cases no matter how much fact is presented, the person is unmoved and usually cannot articulate anything more than “well that’s how I feel” as a counterpoint. Much the same way that no matter how much you explain to a person afraid of spiders, the one you are holding is safe and harmless. It just doesn’t matter. Their position is 100% emotion based so facts and logic have no effect. This is the worst type to deal with in my opinion because for them, it is hatred. And as such they do not care how underhanded they may have to be to suppress that which scares them so much. This is the type that also is so quick to seize upon a tragedy to further their agenda. This, in my view, is the most dangerous type of politician for the second amendment. The reason for this is simple. They can get on all the media outlets and give a 5 minute emotional argument against firearms ownership that will reach the general voting masses of the public. It WILL move them. It takes an hour or more of logic and reasoning to counter the emotional  argument. Try getting an hour of public attention span! The second is the type that really has no true understanding of that which he is legislating against. But an event occurs and this seems to trigger a feeling in them that there is an expectation from the public for them to act. They just don’t realize why it’s so ineffective and only really impacts those already abiding by the law. But at least with this type, there is a chance they can be educated on the subject. Once bad laws are passed, I think they are incredibly hard to overturn because no politician want the headline to read that they are accused by their opponent, come election time, that they are making the public unsafe. So it is vitally important they are stopped before they become laws.

For all the other politicians out there that get it, you have my deepest respect for upholding the constitution.

[CageFighter 236]

well written! 

[Underdog 1,593]

Yes, it is well-written. 

 

The problem is that the people believe that politicians, though sometimes seemingly acting against common sense, have the best intentions and really want to do the right thing for the people.  And, this is just not so.  Politicians have their own agendas and only help the people out when it is politically expedient to do so, or when it happens to be coincidence.  Therefore, they generally don't care. 

[Howard 538]

If the roads could only be paved with good intentions we would be free of potholes in this over regulated over taxed state.

[rlsbee 1]

Nicely done. I would urge you to publish this in whatever media will do so. Also worth sending to politicians. I realize that such efforts will be difficult, at best, to change anyone's mind but we must keep trying. We can't let up!

[JimmyAGR 54]

Nice Shane, you should send it to all of "our" politicians....

[bhunted 887]

Absolutely... Very good. But screw sending it to politicians. They already don't care. But get it in magazines and papers, then they will be forced to read them.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Russ2882 0]

Excellent posting!  Thank you for keeping it under cover for two years so it would appear at the top of the topic listing so I could find it.  Depressed that others before have not had the opportunity to read before now.

 

I have finally woken up to assume my "social responsibility" to take an active role.  Over the last few years I have been asking the same questions and have finally taken the steps to join a minority group.  Your article is an inspiration for me.  Over the past few weeks I've initiated more contact with politicians than I've had in the last 30 years.  

 

I would disagree about forgetting the politicians.  Let them have a copy of this so they won't miss reading it on the Opinion page of their local newspaper.

 

Thank you,

[bhunted 887]

Shane, I saved this and credited you. Do you mind if I pass this out to a select few I can get my hands on?

[Shane45 807]

Guys, thanks for the kind words. Yes it can be distributed freely. I just ask that it remain unchanged and that my name be included at the bottom.

 

Thanks!

 

Shane

[W2MC 1,699]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions....