[alan]

The following is a copy and paste of thouights,comments, questions I sent my U.S. Senators and Member of The House.

Readers here are welcome to use my thoughts/comments, questions as a guide/template for whatever they might address to their own, "elected officials".



Reiteration of a few points regarding the fiasco that is Gun Control, lately Gun Safety:

1. On Expanded or Universal Background Checks: If such were to be enacted, I suspect that such "background checks" could easily morph into a system of Arms Registration and or Arms Owner Registration, ideas that The Congress has, repeatedly and wisely rejected in the past. Additionally, and it is a matter of historical fact, Registration Leads To Confiscation, such confiscation having taken place in this country, legally owned arms being confiscated from the law abiding. I was a witness to such goings on years ago, when I resided in New York City.

2. Re the banning of "assault weapons", note the following. Anything that one person attacks another person with, by virtue of it's use, is the proverbial "assault weapon", firearm or otherwise. As to the latest of Lady Dianne's legislative flights of fancy, yet another proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons", once again, she goes on and on over cosmetic features. The semiautomatic rifle was first offered in this country by Winchester and Remington prior to World War 1, think 1906-1908, more than 100 years ago. Over that period, they have been made in various calibers, with various magazine capacities. The term "assault weapon" is the product of The Anti Gun/Anti Gun Rights Lobby's rhetoric, aided and abetted by media "hypsters", who serve as Anti Gun Fellow Travelers, or The Useful Idiots of yore.

3. Assault Rifle is a proper military/technical term, which refers to the Selective Fire Rifle, that is a weapon capable of firing multiple shots with a single actuation of it's trigger, ala a machine gun. Such arms are not generally available to the private citizen in this country, see 80 year old federal law, The National Firearms Act of 1934. Additionally, some states forbid the private citizen from possession of such arms, others do not. In any case, the numerous restrictions of existing federal law apply.

4. As to other proposals, Anti Trafficking Legislation and Anti Straw Purchases proposals, such activity is currently violative of existing federal law, law that is, under the aegis of Obama et al, not much enforced, as a rule. As to why this is, I suggest that you ask the president, he might be able to explain, I'm left curious. You might also question the president about his administration's Operation Fast & Furious.

We now come to a couple of additional points:

A. "common sense gun laws" which describe constitutionally questionable proposals, proposals that were in the past tried and which failed to bring promised results, is an interesting exercise in semantics. To describe the ridiculous as "common sense", imparts nothing desirable to such proposals. We simply see another exercise in "lipsticking the pig", action that has perhaps caused Cover Girl and or L'OREAL line to go onto an extra production shift, but which otherwise accomplish nothing.

B. Re the advertising campaign put on by New York City's Mayor Blomberg, the following comes to mind. This morning, on one of the Sunday news shows, I saw this ad on Channel 4, ABC here in Pittsburgh.. It displayed the very worst examples of unsafe gun handling that I had ever seen on television, or most other venues. It is such garbage as this that solicits viewers to "call their senators". Fair enough, I'm doing just that. Ignore Blomberg's blandishments. You might also take note of a Letter To The Editor in 31 March Pgh. P-G Forum section, page B-2, submitted by John Ball of Baden. The letter is titled Mishandling guns, and I submit, speaks most eloquently, for itself. You might review this letter, it's not lengthy, but it does make important points. One of which is, re Blomberg's ad campaign, "consider the source", for Mayor Blomberg is an unindicted conspirator, he having been the originator of a conspiracy to violate existing federal gun laws. all for your own good, of course. I wonder however if, having performed as he did, would Joe and or Jane Every Person today be walking around, free as the proverbial bird, or would they have since been indicted, tried and possibly convicted of serious violations of the law.

In short sir, the often stated goal of The Anti Gun Lobby, there is one you know, is and remains the Total Proscription of Privately Owned Arms, end of story. Re this fact, the only thing that can or should be offered to the anti gunners is, as some Irish friends were wont to note is "the back of me hand to ye". for compromise of any sort only encourages demands for more. There is no compromise possible with such people, for anything offered is viewed as a sign of weakness, lack of resolve, which serves only to encourage further demands. Never Forget That. The Anti Gunners will put endless amounts of lipstick on the same old pig. It remains that all they have to offer is the same old pig, albeit adorned with a bit more lipstick. Never Forget That.