Another reply from Feinstein -

Dear  Mr. Kelley :

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation.  I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view. 

 

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life.  From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings.  I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available.  These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged. 

 

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings.  Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms , District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited.  That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both  before and after the  Heller decision.   I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate. 

 

Once again, thank you for your letter.  Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues.  If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. 

-----     SNIP     -----

And, my reply.

  

Senator Feinstein;

  Thank you for your reply - however, I still have issue with a few things.  I hope you won't mind if I apply some corrections?

  "Assault weapon" - Derived from "Assault Rifle," most likely, it should be noted that assault rifles are already subject to Federal control, under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Part and parcel of the definition of "assault rifle" - one of the defining characteristics per the defining agency, the Department of Defense - is the ability to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger action, via either a "burst mode" (three- or four-round burst fired with a trigger pull,) or the ability to fire fully automatic.  This falls under the umbra of "select fire" - which means that the safety selector will have at least three positions: SAFE, FIRE (semi-automatic), and AUTO or BURST.  Therefore, firearms like the M16, M16A1, M16A2 (SAFE/FIRE/AUTO,) M16A3 (three-round burst) and M16A4 (four-round burst) are classed as "assault rifles," while firearms like the AR-15 (semi-automatic fire mode only) are not.  "Assault rifle"/"assault weapon" is a term that has been misappropriated by the press - and then politics (or the other way about?) - to elicit an emotional response for more laws that are genuinely not necessary.

  Yes, mass shootings are a problem in society.  Any sort of mass killing is a problem - but why are we so heavily focused on firearms?  If I drive my car through a storefront and kill fifteen people, will we then start calling for a ban on automobiles?  If I should wade into a gathering and beat a dozen people to death with a section of 2x4, will we hear calls for "lumber control?"  Probably not - in either case, the focus will be where it belongs, which is on the perpetrator.

  We need to focus more upon the perpetrator of the act, rather than on the tools used.  Citing the above examples, there is a single element of consistency - whatever method is used to kill, the victims are just as dead.  The difference?  If they're run over, beaten to death, thrown off of a cliff, locked into cages & starved, or whatever - your focus will be (correctly!) on the perpetrator.

  If people are shot; then, for some reason, the focus is on the firearm - and not the person holding it.

  Two problems here:

1) A firearm is an inanimate object.  It has no will, desire, or animation of its own.  It is just as inert as that 2x4 or that car that I mentioned earlier.  Why is it treated so differently?  I've heard the argument about firearms being "designed to kill" - that argument could be made about literally any other object used to kill.  A firearm is a tool, just as much as a computer, or a card index, or a wrench.  It may be used for good or for ill - and that difference is the intent of the user.

2) All of this focus on firearms speaks of an irrational fear.  Tell me, Senator, have you been shot?  Is that the genesis of your fear?  Many people fear what has harmed them.  By that logic, I should be afraid of a great deal - firearms, knives, automobiles, rocks, whatever.  Just about anything & everything has been used, at one time or another, to cause me harm.

  But, I don't fear any of it - because I make the distinction between the tool and the user.  As many times as I've smacked myself in the thumb with a hammer, you'd want to think that I wouldn't get anywhere near them anymore.  But, I have a broad assortment of hammers (for various tasks,) and I use them fairly regularly.

  I've been stabbed.  Am I afraid of knives?  No!  I carry one on a daily basis - it's a tool to me.  I've used it to feed myself, I've used it to help me repair things.

  I've been struck by vehicles - a number of times.  By now, I should be paralyzed with fear at the prospect of getting anywhere near a car, no?  I'm not.  I'm still a very good driver, and I have no particular fear of vehicles.

  So, I ask again - were you shot?  Is that the origin of your fear of firearms?  It's a genuine question - and I am minded of your argument a long time ago when trying to push through a ban on .50 caliber firearms - "they can penetrate armored limousines." 

  Senator, if that's what you're worried about, perhaps you should examine /why/ people might want to fire on an armored limousine? 

  However, I will offer this compromise.  If We The People don't need firearms (for whatever reason) - because your overarching aim is to eventually ban all of them - then /you/ don't need them either.  Not only should /you/ not be allowed to carry - or own - a firearms (what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?) you should also forego the need for armed bodyguards - private or public.  Go on about your business as you would have us do - alone, relying upon yourself and your hands & wits for your own defense.

- No additional security at any of your offices.

- Dismiss security at the Capitol Building.

- No bodyguards.

- No personal firearms.

- No body armor

- No armored vehicles.

  As I learned a long time ago, leadership is best defined using two words - "Follow me."  As an elected official, you are expected to lead.  Lead by example.  Show your faith in your constituents.  Walk about in public - alone and unguarded - and actually talk to the everyday people.  What you find out may be quite educational! 

  If you don't trust people enough to be able to do that simple action, it may be time for self-analysis to figure out why you don't trust anyone.

  Walk alone among your constituents - let us see that you can.

  As far as mass shootings, wholesale violence, and the like?  Handle that the way you would handle any other mass killing - focus on the perpetrator, not the tool.  (Rather like the "War on Drugs" - you people have that backwards as well.  Instead of trying to cut the supply - when someone always ends up filling the void - you should be working on demand.  Find out why people are doing drugs, and correct that.  Then, the supply will dry up on its own!)

Jon D. Kelley
San Jose, CA

-----     SNIP     -----

I feel like I'm going after a lunatic asylum with a banana; but it is our right to ask these people what they're thinking, and if I don't make an effort I simply do not have any right to bitch!