Disclaimer:

It occurred to me that I should so one, so here goes:

- Not all posts will be 'work safe' - primarily due to language used (if I feel deeply about something, I should emphasize that.)  I'll try to warn you in the title.

- Most of the opinions I express here will probably be unpopular.  Why?  I'm a Draconian son-of-a-bitch, and I have heavy-duty opinions.  Deal.  I've seen the worst of Man's inhumanity to Man, and I'm pretty far from the real nadir.

- Not all of the opinions I will express here are even mine.  Why?  Sometimes I'll take an extreme point of view in an effort to blast you out of your complacency and trigger some independent thought.

- I'm perfectly willing to entertain opposing viewpoints.  I'm also willing to be convinced if I'm wrong.  However, simply telling me I'm wrong, or just disagreeing me, is NOT going to work.  Put some effort into it - an argument is not formed from the automatic, knee-jerk reflex gainsay of a position!  If you're not willing to put some thought into articulating your disagreement, I don't want to hear it.  TALK TO ME.

I am articulate and intelligent.  I am also rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.  I have strong opinions, but they are not fixed - they are indeed subject to change.  Are you willing to put forth the effort to convince me?

I don't have a theme for this blog because life doesn't have a theme.  The closest I get to a personal life theme is "up to eleven" - beyond that, things change too much!  This is just what I'm thinking about, what I see that I like, or what pisses me off - and offering a solution (after all, if you can't offer a potential solution to the problem, you don't understand the problem.  Again, "you're wrong!" is not an acceptable answer.)

Welcome aboard.  Did you bring your helmet?  Watch for flying objects!

-JDK

DST Yet Again...

I am so tired of this nonsense.  It doesn't do anything useful, it won't do anything useful anymore, it screws with people, it screws with traffic twice a year (for about a fortnight at a time,) it screws with productivity, and it needs to stop.

Pick a time - I don't care which - and let us leave our clocks alone!

I don't care that many clocks are radio-synchronized or Internet-synchronized, I'm not going to drop $300 on a watch so I don't have to play with it - I'll probably screw it up anyhow (I can't wear digital, and battery-powered analogue watches are only good for 5-6 years for me.)

I grew up in Indiana without DST, and came out just fine.

Then that damned fool in Washington a few years back got the dates moved because "it puts a smile on people's faces."

You want to put a smile on my face?  Make the whole idea go away!

I'm about to throw all of my clocks on Zulu and leave them there - just remember what the current offset is.  Only problem with that is my wife doesn't think that way, and it would screw her up (it's taken her this long to get used to my thinking on a 24-hour dial...)

A Few Words on Littering...

"Littering is bad, m'kay?" [/MACKEY]

However, it still gets done.  And we get stupid laws put in place to "prevent" it - like San Jose's bag law - new this year! 

- Stores may not hand out plastic bags AT ALL anymore (takeout food shops are exempt.)
- Only paper bags may be offered.
- These bags must be from a source that certifies some percentage of post-consumer recycling (I don't recall how much.)
- Offered?  Yeah.  If you're smart, you bring your own bags.  If you don't, you can buy bags with your groceries - bags are ten cents each.  They say they're reusable, but the handles don't work and the bags tear.
- The merchant must purchase the bags, but funds raised from consumers buying the bags go to the city.
- And, it still doesn't address the basic problem - people throwing shit out the window.

Although I don't think that's the biggest source of litter.  Other sources?

- I'm always picking up stuff that people threw out on the side of the street into my yard!  At least a good chunk of it is CRV, so I do pick up some nickels with the trash (I have a very aggressive recycling programme here at home.  If I were allowed to run a small incinerator, and the City were to properly mount its kerbside recycling programme, I'd have a landfill footprint of ZERO.)
- People keep sticking business cards or flyers in my front door, or hanging them on the knob.  On laying them on the front stoop.  I know how to use Yellow Pages - dropping stuff in my lap like that is usually a good way to make sure I don't get anything from you!  And, it's been known to blow around.  Whose fault is it when it ends up in the street before I get home?
- People putting things under the windscreen wipers or in the beltline weatherstrip on my car door.  This Really.  Pisses.  Me.  Off.  It's invariably for items, services, or events I have no interest in, and don't care if they happen or not.  This leaves me with a few options:
-- Yank it out and drop it.  As far as I'm concerned, the person who put it there was littering, he just wasn't committed to the job.
-- Yank it out and handle it myself.  Why should I be forced to do your job?
-- Yank it out and ram it up your ass.  I would, but the person who put it there is usually long gone.
(I don't know why, but putting some BS like that on my car is a bigger pisser-offer than sticking it on my front door!)

And let's not limit "litter" to material objects?  How about pop-up adverts online?  Just more crap you don't want that you have to deal with.  I'd also include SPAM in that list, but that's more like "postage due junk mail" than anything else ("junk mail" because that's exactly what it is.  "Postage Due" because the sender doesn't have to commit any resources to getting it out.  At least regular junk mail is something that pays the Postal People...)

Whatever happened to the days when advertising was inoffensive, and could be readily ignored?

Discuss.

My full-time job...

Seems to be rapidly becoming writing letters.  Here's another I just put out:

-----     SNIP     -----
Senator Darrell Steinberg

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA  95814

Senator Steinberg;

     I note with dismay a large number of measures being proposed, theoretically in an effort to “curb firearms violence,” but I feel that these measures will achieve little more than making criminals out of people with no criminal intent whatever.  Is this what our system of law is meant to do?

     I refer you first to your own website - http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-07-proposals-curb-gun-violence

     Fixed Magazines (Senator Steinberg.)  Once again, we’re trying to ban firearms based on features.  While a fixed vice a removable magazine is not strictly a “cosmetic” features (as the incredibly asinine criteria of “bayonet lugs” and “thumbhole stocks” are – even “protruding pistol grips” are more cosmetic than functional,) it is still silly to ban a firearm – or a class of firearms – based on features.  Or at all.  What was once the work of visionaries is now simply the work of craftsmen – once it’s known to be possible, much of the hard work is done.

     High-Capacity Magazines (Senator Hancock.)  Why the arbitrary limit of ten rounds?  How is limiting firearms to ten rounds in capacity going to serve to help anyone?  Maybe if, in the middle of a home invasion committed by one or two people, ten rounds of ammunition would be useful.  Confronted by a group with nefarious intent?  Not so much.  If a ten-round limit is so useful, then the police should be limited to ten rounds as well (given their track record, I think they need the magazine capacity ban more than private citizens do…)

     “Bullet Button” (Senator Yee.) Wants to ban a magazine catch that is easier to work?  This is the same mentality that would ban vehicle makers from using “double-cut” keys that can be inserted into the lock cylinder with either side up, I think.  What, honestly, is the point of this?  Is Senator Yee merely trying to justify his paycheque?

     Redefining Banned Shotguns (Senator Jackson.)  “New technology of a shotgun-rifle combination?”  Senator Jackson sounds more like she’s from Hanna-Barbera than Santa Barbara.  First, combining a shotgun and a rifle in a given firearm is not at all new – it’s called a “drilling,” and has been around at least since World War Two.  These were in common use among African game hunters as backup firearms in the 1920s and 1930s, often combining a mid-weight rifle (analogous to, say, the .308 Winchester) and a 12ga shotgun barrel.  The Taurus Judge mentioned (firing .45 Colt/.410 shotgun) merely takes advantage of the coincidence that the two cartridges are roughly equivalent in critical dimensions.  This makes for a firearm that would be quite useful in snake country.  However, by rifling the bore, the shotgun loads become useless rather rapidly (shot load dispersion and rifled barrels simply don’t get along well at all – you get a “donut” shaped pattern, and it becomes too dispersed to be of any use whatever beyond 10-20 yards, depending on shot size and charge density.  These firearms are hardly any “more dangerous” than anything else.)

     Ownership record of all firearms (Senator Steinberg.) Isn’t that what the CA DROS and BATF Form 4473 are for?  Are you losing these records?  Perhaps you should work on recordkeeping and filing, instead of passing a new law (that will do little to nothing to actually help the problems.)

     Gun Loans (Senator Block.) Providing a firearm – through transfer, sale, or loan – to a “prohibited possessor” is already a violation of state and federal laws – a felony, I believe.  So, why do we need another law?

     Ammunition Purchase Permit (Senator de Leon.) And what is to prevent the capricious denial of ammunition purchase permits, just as CCW permits are capriciously denied here in CA?  How will this help?  Possession of ammunition – as possession of firearms – by “prohibited possessors” is already illegal, once again.  We do not need a duplication of law.

     APPS Expansion & Enforcement (Senators Leno & Steinberg.) I am unable to find information on APPS in a casual search – but I assume this is yet another database listing people, probably persons prohibited from legal ownership of firearms under state or federal law, as a state reference.  If so, this seems to have the same potential for misuse or overuse as the TSA “No Fly” list – and can people find out what they did to find themselves on the list, or are they left to guess, if there was no obvious cause?  What “other crimes” are proposed to be added?  Why add DUIs?  (While I honestly don’t think that DUI is punished harshly enough in this country, I don’t think stripping rights is the way to go.  Fifty lashes would be more appropriate.)

      Firearms Safety Certificate (Senator Block.)  While I think people should be trained & safe with firearms, I think that forcing a license – and forcing annual renewal of same – isn’t the way to go.  However, I offer this compromise: if the requirements for the Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) are to be similar to the requirements for CCW, then the CCW should be replaced by the FSC entirely.  Having a valid FSC should constitute permitting for carry of a concealed sidearm in California.  And, the FSC should be freely available to anyone who wishes to take the course, no argument about eligibility or cause, and the fee should be reasonable (in no case, more than $50, say, for a four-year license.  If annual renewal is to be required, then the fee should not exceed ten dollars.

     For a blow-by-blow of commentary on another site - http://offgridsurvival.com/californiatobansemiautomaticguns-confiscatefirearms/ :

Banning Possession of magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds: You have just made criminals out of a few million people who have no criminal intent whatever, and you have deprived them of real property without due process – or, I suspect, compensation for same.     

Possession of Hollowpoint bullets a felony:  Did you know that the original purpose of a hollownose projectile had nothing to do with wounding or killing potential?  By shifting weight from the core of the projectile to the rim, gyroscopic stability was increased – which lead to much less “wobble” in flight, and a straighter ballistic path.  Yes – hollowpoint bullets were originally developed for accuracy in competition marksmanship!  As far as “assault bullets” – I’ll leave this alone until I know what you’re talking about, because I can’t figure out what you mean here.      

Ammunition purchase permit/background check – See previous comments

Registration & reporting of ammunition purchases.  Limit to 500 rounds.  Dumb idea.  Take one guy with a .22 rifle who enjoys plinking – he can go through a good thousand rounds in a single outing!  He harms no-one, but you’re going to take that hobby away from him?  As far as permitting to purchase ammunition, see comments above

Gun owners licensed like drivers. See previous comments.  However, if you’re going to make me get a license, then that license should not restrict me in what firearms I can purchase – meaning that Form 4s for Class III/Title 2 and AOW would no longer be an obstacle.  After all, I can take my driver’s license and essentially buy whatever new or used vehicle I care to, yes?

Magazines not grandfathered.  Possession of a magazine manufactured/purchased prior to the ban a felony.  Something about ex post facto laws comes to mind here – and how they’re not permitted under Constitutional law.  Again, you’re making criminals out of people with no criminal intent.

Prohibited possessors can’t live in a house with a firearm, even if they don’t have access to it.  Yet another dumb idea.  Now, you’ve effectively made two people felons, through “constructive intent.”

Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from firearms possession.  Again – what are you proposing to add?  Why?  What justification are you using?

Senator Steinberg, I implore you to first compare the incidence in homicide in Chicago against the incidence of combat deaths in Afghanistan over the last ten years to see the “beneficial” effect gun control legislation has.  Or compare crimes against the person before-and-after firearms bans in England and Australia.  Then, do a similar comparison for Kennesaw, Georgia.

Final question – “Steinberg” is a Jewish name, is it not?  Recall the lessons of history – what happened when the Jews were no longer allowed to own firearms?  How many were killed?  Or rounded up and put into ghettoes, and left to die?  I would honestly hope that, of all people, the Jews would see the fallacy in firearms control legislation – although given the typical sources of such, I am forced to wonder.  Many of these proposals come from people with Jewish surnames.  Perhaps you should spend some time speaking to the leaders of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership?  Their founder (Aaron Zelman)         left us a few years ago, but I had the good fortune to have met him – and to have learned a few things from him (and he did not mind that I am a Scot, rather than a Jew.)  I haven’t had occasion to interact with their new leadership – but if they’re cut from the same cloth as Mr. Zelman, nearly anyone would find much to learn from them!  I have had occasion to interact with many Jews over the years, there are quite a few I have been proud to call friends, and most of the Jews I’ve known have shared one common characteristic – a keen knowledge of history and an aggressive desire to not repeat its mistakes.

Senator, I am at your disposal if you should wish to discuss these matters.  Due to a roads incident a few years ago, I keep bizarre hours – so electronic mail is easiest.  I have provided my address at the top of this letter.  I realize that I am not one of your direct constituents – but as a resident of California, what you do does have some effect on me.  Also, our son and his family live up in the Sacramento area, (our other son and his family are local to us here,) so you can see where my vested interests lie.  I find it odd that no-one ever seems to want to discuss these matters, but I am hoping that this trend eventually reverses.  I often feel that no input is accepted from dissenting voices, when such policies are crafted.

------     SNIP     -----

Per usual, I will post any replies I get.  I lose hope for a bloodless revolution as time goes on...

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! 

Feinstein's reply...

To the letter I send re: Sandy Hook, gun control, mental healthcare, et al

-----     SNIP     -----

Dear  Mr. Kelley :

Thank you for contacting me about partisanship in our political discourse.  I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond. 

I am a strong proponent of the core values that serve as the foundation of the Democratic Party, but I also believe it is important for politicians to put aside partisan feelings and work together on behalf of the American people.  Respectful political discourse encourages the expression of ideas and is an important part of our democratic system.  It also allows the minority view a voice in a debate and can encourage leaders to find areas of compromise. 

The voters of  California deserve leadership that will work across party lines to address issues such as national security, education reform, border security, health care reform, clean water, the budget, and other issues.  Representing  California in the Senate is a challenging and rewarding responsibility, and I am committed to finding real solutions to the problems that face  California and the Nation.  I frequently work across party lines to get things done, in recognition that compromise by both parties is often the key to advancing our nation's interests.

Once again, thank you for writing.  If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to call my  Washington ,  D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.  Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator

 

 -----     SNIP     -----

In reply, I was forced to ask, "Did anyone there actually READ my letter?  I didn't say anything whatever about 'partisanship in political discourse'."

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."  -Mark Twain

"Be respectful to your superiors, if you have any."  -Mark Twain (given the responses I get from legislators, I have my doubts...)

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. Some think it the voice of God."  -Mark Twain

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."  -Mark Twain (possibly, and misquoted?  The sentiment is accurate, and fits with the rest of his writings...)

"Dear God, if you won't help us, at least have some pity on us who can still see..."

My response to Sandy Hook

I had to think about it, and part of the thinking was just waiting to see what Washington was going to do.

So, I'm kicking out seven copies of this letter (see the cc: list,) and I'll post any cogent responses I get, if/when I get them.

I seriously doubt they're willing to entertain discussion with one of the "Great Unwashed," but hope springs infernal, no?  If I do manage to get some discussion on the subject, I plan to take notes and let everyone know.

-----     SNIP     -----
 

President Barack Hussein Obama                                    

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Mister President;

                I note with dismay that you are intending to enact more firearms control legislation in the wake of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14DEC2012.

                While I fully agree that this was a horrible event and could potentially have been prevented, I do not feel that more firearms control legislation is the answer.  After all, how many laws were broken in this act to begin with?  We had:

-          Four counts of theft of a firearm (Bushmaster XM-15, Glock 20, Sig-Sauer 9mm, and an unknown shotgun)

-          Two counts of underage possession of a handgun

-          Grand Theft Auto

-          Three violations of the “Gun-Free School Zone”

-          Twenty counts of unlawful homicide upon minors

-          Six counts of unlawful homicide upon adults

-          One count of vandalism in course of unlawful entry (breaking into the school in the first place)

-          Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (two victims were shot, but not fatally)

I count that as a total of thirty-five felony violations of law, and four counts that that may or may not be felonies (violations of gun-free school zones, vandalism in the course of unlawful entry.)

I also did not list counts of unlawful property damage, as no list was given.

Now I ask you sir – how can having more laws for Lanza to have broken helped to prevent this sad occurrence?  I have listed thirty-nine violations above, and I’m reasonably certain that that list is not at all complete.

However, if Lanza had displayed symptoms of potential emotional/psychological disturbance prior to the shooting, I am highly inclined to think that having better access to mental healthcare would have potentially had a greater positive effect to prevent this incident than any action of law would have had.

Mister President, I firmly believe that firearms control is not the answer we need.  You have gotten your Affordable Care Act passed, but how much if it addresses gaps in the mental healthcare system?  (Granted, I have my doubts about psychiatric medicine being the answer, but psychological testing and counseling should be far more available than they currently are.)

Therefore, Mister President, I urge you to consider other solutions than simply banning firearms – if for no better reason than that something cannot be “uninvented” – like so many other developments throughout history, what was once the work of a visionary is now the work of a skilled tradesman – or hobbyist.

I can think of other potential solutions – or partial solutions – to this issue, but that would be material for further discussion.  I firmly believe that making mental health services far more available than they are would work to avert a great deal of unfortunate incidents in today’s society, and this should be considered before any restrictive regulations are enacted.

Mister President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further.

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA

CC:         Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

                Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

                Senator Harry Reid (D-NV.  Majority Leader)

                Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY.  Minority Leader)

                Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose, CA)

                Representative John Boehner (R-OH 8^th.  Speaker)

                Representative Eric I. Cantor (R-VA 7^th.  Majority Leader)

                Representative Nancy P. D. Pelosi (D-CA 8^th.  Minority Leader)

-----     SNIP     -----

The base letter is written to President Obama, but I've added some individual comments with letters as indicated.

Discuss.