iamhistory
06-21-2002, 06:00 PM
Hi Everyone..........I'm new to the forum and this is my first posting. I am posting an e-mail exchange I had today with anti-gun radio host Clark Garen (apparently) of "Think Radio" and the website "goodbyeguns.org" I found that site via this forum and checked it out b/c I like to educate myself on what the enemy is doing, thinking and saying to better arm myself with the tools necessary to combat their nonsensical attacks.
I sent Mr. Garen an e-mail via my hotmail account outlining a letter written by Angel Shamaya asking the Anti crowd a few questions, something I also have seen in this forum. His reply was childish and typical because my hotmail had cut the letter short. I responded to his e-mail and sent him the letter again. I will update you if he writes me back, which I'm sure he will certainly send another assault that has nothing to do with the issue of the Second Amendment.
It's nice to be in such good company. I shoot a Romanian WASR 10 and a Chinese SKS, besides being a pistol nut; my 1911 and Glock 23 are my favorites.
Talk to you all again soon.
Here is my latest correspondence with good ole Clark.
Good one. Very witty.
I figured that would be the type of response I would
get from you. Thanks. You simply reinforced the
fact that people like you serve no positive purpose in
this world except in your own minds. Your politics
are negative and are only based on the emotional
reactions of the naive to further your positions. You
blatantly misrepresent facts and guiltlessly promote
your own agenda under the guise and auspices of other
ventures such as caring for children, making our
neighborhoods safer, or protecting the environment.
You have no integrity. You have no shame. You have
no morality. You have no sense of Patriotism. In
fact, you and those like you, though you preach
tolerance, are the epitome of intolerance and you
demonstrate that fact in typical, hypocritical,
liberal fashion. As you did with your reply. On your
own webpage "goodbyeguns.org" it says "Clark believes
a small group of con artists are fooling our citizens
into throwing away the rights our founding fathers
paid for with their lives. Think Radio advocates
"awareness and thought" as tools to defeat these evil
and sinister con artists."
Are you kidding me? You have the audacity to post
something like that on a website aimed at ridding the
United States of America of firearms, thus violating
and descreting the United States Constitution?????
Clark seriously, you need to seek therapy. But all
anyone needs to know about you to understand your
character is that, you're a lawyer. Enough said.
Just on the slight chance that you may actually have
something factual and possibly intelligent to say in
response to the letter I posted (but cannot take
credit for writing), I'll resend my e-mail and post
the letter again for your review. I'll use another
domain just to make you happy, because of course
that's what's important; making sure YOU get what YOU
want. It is your right to be happy isn't it? God
forbid I violate your rights.
Oh, by the way....you spelled "deserves" incorrectly.
Am I wrong or is it some new Libonics type of spelling
that is being implemented in the California school
districts?
Sincerely,
Tom Rinker
P.S.
I apologize if I offended you by saying God.
>From: clark@goodbyeguns.org
>To: "Thomas Rinker"
>Subject: Re: A letter to the anit-gun crowd
>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:50:06 -0700
You cut off the bottom of your email. I hate to say
this, but
anyone who uses HOTMAIL deservers to be cut off.
POSTED LETTER
Letter to My Anti-Gun Friends
by Angel Shamaya
with contributing editors
Reprinted from the free KeepAndBearArms.org/.com Email
Report
Inspired by This Document
Dear Anti-Gun People,
I am opening a dialogue with you to better comprehend
your position through reviewing your responses to a
few questions. After you've read my questions and the
provided links, I'll answer any questions you may have
regarding my strong belief in the right to keep and
bear arms, and I hope you will truthfully answer the
questions I pose to you below:
1) Do you believe the government is always honest with
the people?
2) A woman who is unarmed is easy prey for an armed
rapist. But there are many places in America where a
woman cannot legally carry a gun to protect herself
from attack. Do you think it is better for a woman to
be raped than to fend off a rapist in self-defense
with a gun? If so, why? If not, then do you advise
women to resist armed rapists with their bare hands?
3) Britain has effectively disarmed its citizens.
Their own Olympic shooters had to ship guns out of the
country or turn them in to be destroyed. But if more
gun control decreases crime, why is Britain
experiencing an epidemic of gun-related violence? (See
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/gun)
4) Washington, D.C. has a per capita murder rate of 69
per 100,000 with the strictest gun control laws in the
country. Indianapolis, with much more gun freedom,
only has 9 murders per 100,000 residents. If disarming
people makes cities safer, how can this be?
5) There are tens of thousands of cases of people
getting no response from the 911 system--including
scores of cases where people were still wounded or
killed after having dialed 911. If a criminal is
already inside your house, garage, or car, is dialing
911 really the most effective way of immediately
dealing with the situation?
(See
http://www.channel2000.com/news/sto...713-124534.html)
6) Police also have no legal requirement to protect
you when you call for help. People attacked by
criminals and injured after calling police for help
cannot sue in court and win. This places the
responsibility of personal protection in the hands of
each individual. Does it make sense that the
individual be denied the same access to tools for
self-protection that police enjoy? (See
http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection and also
http://dial911.itgo.com)
7) Every national gun licensing and registration in
history has led to confiscation. Gun registration in
America has already led to confiscation in New York
and California. (See
http://www.sierratimes.com/arjj020700.htm) If you
support gun registration in America, would you please
explain how having their guns registered helped the
citizens in China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Soviet
Union, or Uganda? Do you think gun registration was
beneficial to the Jews in Germany, the Cambodians
under Pol Pot, or the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung? (See
http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm.)
8) Why are the media and the government working in
unison to disarm America when the most in-depth
scientific studies on the subject of private gun
ownership shows that more guns in the hands of
citizens REDUCES violent crime? (See
http://www.reasonmag.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html) What
agenda for the US do they have planned that requires
disarming the citizens of our country?
9) Criminals get guns, knives, and bludgeons any time
they wish, and they disobey whatever laws they
wish--including laws against robbery, rape, and
murder. Why would you want to make law-abiding
citizens easier prey by taking away their guns?
(See
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pag...s02004.html?999)
10) We rarely see both sides of the gun debate issue
on national television. Why is that? It has already
been proven by the most in-depth scientific study on
the subject of guns and crime that more guns in the
hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.
11) The ACLU and most Americans think a door-to-door
search for drugs is a gross violation of civil rights.
Many gun banners would like to see door-to-door
confiscation of guns. Are you willing to have Your
Home searched for guns (or anything else) any time the
government wishes to do so?
12) Every year Americans citizens legally kill 3-5
times as many criminals as are killed by all the law
enforcement officials combined. Up to 2 1/2 million
times a year, citizens use guns to legally thwart
crime--usually when they are the intended victims. If
citizens are disarmed, these intended victims will be
defenseless against armed criminals. Are you saying
that millions of Americans each year should have no
right to stop criminals who are victimizing them?
Would you prefer to give many more criminals the
ability to succeed each year?
13) Today, many men and women have reason to believe
that the Federal government is intent on disarming the
American people as a means to significantly greater
control-- the way citizens in disarmed China, Germany,
the Soviet Union and Cuba are controlled. If these
people are right, does this concern you?
14) There are 360-450 citizens in America for every
law enforcement officer. (600,000/750,000 to
270,000,000) Do you believe each law enforcement
officer can protect 360-450 people from violent
criminals?
15) When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners
are presented as "extremists" in today's media.
American public servants surrounded by armed
bodyguards and/or living in neighborhoods with private
security are telling law-abiding citizens we cannot
carry or even own (some cities/states) a gun--not even
to protect ourselves and our families. Do you see the
hypocrisy? Can you understand why tolerance pushed
beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger?
Can you understand why being told we cannot enjoy the
same safety our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a
politician's life more important than your life? If
so, why?
16) Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned
electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly
proven to be biased against guns; it is not presenting
both sides of the issue. (See
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm) On the
other hand, http://www.citizensofamerica.org has a
media program that presents the pro-gun side of the
story. If you believe in "equality" regarding public
property, should COA be given free media time to
present their case? And just why IS the media so
biased in the first place? (And why might the
government be anti-gun?)
17) In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being
stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to
purchase a gun--even if her life has been threatened.
Why should law-abiding people in fear of their lives
wait 10 days to get a gun when criminals have no
waiting periods?
18) Criminals often kill people who've already turned
over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman
does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her,
she will be raped. Do you think the government has a
right to require women to submit to rape? If so, why?
19) Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted
with an armed rapist or murderer and leave our
ourselves at their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how
our society would revert to utter lawlessness if
everyone agreed to simply submit to armed criminals?
20) Many anti-gun people use child gun-related
accidents and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns.
Seeing that more children drown every year than are
killed by guns, do you support banning swimming pools?
21) Current federal law now limits the capacity of a
gun's magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their
guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out
alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3
hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm,
would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?
22) Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more
people die in cars every year than by guns--and no
Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own
cars. Because more people die every year in cars than
by guns, do you support a ban on cars? There are also
an alarming number of crimes committed under the
influence of alcohol. Would you support a ban on
alcohol considering it didn't work the last time they
tried it?
23) Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun
manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of
gun-related injuries which took place in their cities.
Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by
guns, do you support these mayors in suing car
manufacturers?
24) Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying
guns for self-defense. These same cities make
exceptions for people carrying money and jewels. Do
you agree that money and jewels are more important to
protect than people's lives?
25) The National Guard is paid by the Federal
government, occupies property leased to the Federal
government, uses weapons owned by the Federal
government, and punishes trespassers under Federal
law. Do you truly believe the National Guard is a
State agency?
26) The National Guard is also what is commonly called
the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way
of trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the
Constitution was referring to the National Guard with
the term "militia," how can we account for the fact
that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787--while
the National Guard was created by an act of Congress
in 1903?
27) The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal
government) gunned down 81 innocent women and children
and burned most of the evidence down to the ground in
Waco and have withheld evidence which would (and still
may) convict them of wrongdoing. They murdered Randy
Weaver's wife. The police and other state agencies
shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in
California. Why would you trust these government
agencies with fully automatic weapons but not trust a
law-abiding individual with a simple self-defense
handgun?
28) The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented
as "gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and
killers" in the communications media. Is it possible
they are depicted this way to sway public opinion
toward disliking guns? If so, why would the media and
the anti-gun politicians do that? How is this
different from the way the news organs of Nazi
Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba
propagandized against the segments of their societies
that opposed complete state control?
29) Many documented statements by anti-gun groups
claim that the Second Amendment refers to the power of
the States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of
the Constitution, we find the following: "the right of
the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," the "right of the
PEOPLE to be secure in their homes," "enumeration here
of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage
others retained by the PEOPLE," and "the powers not
delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the PEOPLE." Do you honestly
believe "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms" refers to the States but excludes Individuals?
30) Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most
portable, easiest-to-use, and most effective means of
self-defense. This is why they are used by police
officers. Denying people the right to use this tool
leaves them defenseless against criminals on the
street. Why do you advocate that law-abiding people
not be allowed to protect themselves with the best
means of self-defense available?
31) The Federal government and the United Nations (See
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesk...coming_yo.shtml)
have been working in unison for years to
systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even
remotely possible that the government has something
planned that so many Americans would be against that
it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see
that supporting their disarmament plans could be
working against the American citizens committed to
preserving freedom?
I do appreciate your thoughts on these matters and
look forward to your reply. I am committed to
answering every question you send me by giving each
one careful attention and a thorough, intelligent
reply as soon as possible. If you pose a question I
cannot intelligently address, I will seek out an
answer until I can.
Respectfully,
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Director
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com
Supporting editors of and contributors to this
document:
Inspired by original sentiments from Michael Z.
Williamson, daggers@indy.net
Brian Puckett, guns1776@earthlink.net
Jamie Jackson, jamie@spiritone.com
Angela Hunter Richardson, elan@fastlane.net
Gil Snodgrass, gilbert@peoplepc.com
Mike Ford, http://www.initiativefortexas.org
I sent Mr. Garen an e-mail via my hotmail account outlining a letter written by Angel Shamaya asking the Anti crowd a few questions, something I also have seen in this forum. His reply was childish and typical because my hotmail had cut the letter short. I responded to his e-mail and sent him the letter again. I will update you if he writes me back, which I'm sure he will certainly send another assault that has nothing to do with the issue of the Second Amendment.
It's nice to be in such good company. I shoot a Romanian WASR 10 and a Chinese SKS, besides being a pistol nut; my 1911 and Glock 23 are my favorites.
Talk to you all again soon.
Here is my latest correspondence with good ole Clark.
Good one. Very witty.
I figured that would be the type of response I would
get from you. Thanks. You simply reinforced the
fact that people like you serve no positive purpose in
this world except in your own minds. Your politics
are negative and are only based on the emotional
reactions of the naive to further your positions. You
blatantly misrepresent facts and guiltlessly promote
your own agenda under the guise and auspices of other
ventures such as caring for children, making our
neighborhoods safer, or protecting the environment.
You have no integrity. You have no shame. You have
no morality. You have no sense of Patriotism. In
fact, you and those like you, though you preach
tolerance, are the epitome of intolerance and you
demonstrate that fact in typical, hypocritical,
liberal fashion. As you did with your reply. On your
own webpage "goodbyeguns.org" it says "Clark believes
a small group of con artists are fooling our citizens
into throwing away the rights our founding fathers
paid for with their lives. Think Radio advocates
"awareness and thought" as tools to defeat these evil
and sinister con artists."
Are you kidding me? You have the audacity to post
something like that on a website aimed at ridding the
United States of America of firearms, thus violating
and descreting the United States Constitution?????
Clark seriously, you need to seek therapy. But all
anyone needs to know about you to understand your
character is that, you're a lawyer. Enough said.
Just on the slight chance that you may actually have
something factual and possibly intelligent to say in
response to the letter I posted (but cannot take
credit for writing), I'll resend my e-mail and post
the letter again for your review. I'll use another
domain just to make you happy, because of course
that's what's important; making sure YOU get what YOU
want. It is your right to be happy isn't it? God
forbid I violate your rights.
Oh, by the way....you spelled "deserves" incorrectly.
Am I wrong or is it some new Libonics type of spelling
that is being implemented in the California school
districts?
Sincerely,
Tom Rinker
P.S.
I apologize if I offended you by saying God.
>From: clark@goodbyeguns.org
>To: "Thomas Rinker"
>Subject: Re: A letter to the anit-gun crowd
>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:50:06 -0700
You cut off the bottom of your email. I hate to say
this, but
anyone who uses HOTMAIL deservers to be cut off.
POSTED LETTER
Letter to My Anti-Gun Friends
by Angel Shamaya
with contributing editors
Reprinted from the free KeepAndBearArms.org/.com Email
Report
Inspired by This Document
Dear Anti-Gun People,
I am opening a dialogue with you to better comprehend
your position through reviewing your responses to a
few questions. After you've read my questions and the
provided links, I'll answer any questions you may have
regarding my strong belief in the right to keep and
bear arms, and I hope you will truthfully answer the
questions I pose to you below:
1) Do you believe the government is always honest with
the people?
2) A woman who is unarmed is easy prey for an armed
rapist. But there are many places in America where a
woman cannot legally carry a gun to protect herself
from attack. Do you think it is better for a woman to
be raped than to fend off a rapist in self-defense
with a gun? If so, why? If not, then do you advise
women to resist armed rapists with their bare hands?
3) Britain has effectively disarmed its citizens.
Their own Olympic shooters had to ship guns out of the
country or turn them in to be destroyed. But if more
gun control decreases crime, why is Britain
experiencing an epidemic of gun-related violence? (See
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/gun)
4) Washington, D.C. has a per capita murder rate of 69
per 100,000 with the strictest gun control laws in the
country. Indianapolis, with much more gun freedom,
only has 9 murders per 100,000 residents. If disarming
people makes cities safer, how can this be?
5) There are tens of thousands of cases of people
getting no response from the 911 system--including
scores of cases where people were still wounded or
killed after having dialed 911. If a criminal is
already inside your house, garage, or car, is dialing
911 really the most effective way of immediately
dealing with the situation?
(See
http://www.channel2000.com/news/sto...713-124534.html)
6) Police also have no legal requirement to protect
you when you call for help. People attacked by
criminals and injured after calling police for help
cannot sue in court and win. This places the
responsibility of personal protection in the hands of
each individual. Does it make sense that the
individual be denied the same access to tools for
self-protection that police enjoy? (See
http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection and also
http://dial911.itgo.com)
7) Every national gun licensing and registration in
history has led to confiscation. Gun registration in
America has already led to confiscation in New York
and California. (See
http://www.sierratimes.com/arjj020700.htm) If you
support gun registration in America, would you please
explain how having their guns registered helped the
citizens in China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Soviet
Union, or Uganda? Do you think gun registration was
beneficial to the Jews in Germany, the Cambodians
under Pol Pot, or the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung? (See
http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm.)
8) Why are the media and the government working in
unison to disarm America when the most in-depth
scientific studies on the subject of private gun
ownership shows that more guns in the hands of
citizens REDUCES violent crime? (See
http://www.reasonmag.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html) What
agenda for the US do they have planned that requires
disarming the citizens of our country?
9) Criminals get guns, knives, and bludgeons any time
they wish, and they disobey whatever laws they
wish--including laws against robbery, rape, and
murder. Why would you want to make law-abiding
citizens easier prey by taking away their guns?
(See
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pag...s02004.html?999)
10) We rarely see both sides of the gun debate issue
on national television. Why is that? It has already
been proven by the most in-depth scientific study on
the subject of guns and crime that more guns in the
hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.
11) The ACLU and most Americans think a door-to-door
search for drugs is a gross violation of civil rights.
Many gun banners would like to see door-to-door
confiscation of guns. Are you willing to have Your
Home searched for guns (or anything else) any time the
government wishes to do so?
12) Every year Americans citizens legally kill 3-5
times as many criminals as are killed by all the law
enforcement officials combined. Up to 2 1/2 million
times a year, citizens use guns to legally thwart
crime--usually when they are the intended victims. If
citizens are disarmed, these intended victims will be
defenseless against armed criminals. Are you saying
that millions of Americans each year should have no
right to stop criminals who are victimizing them?
Would you prefer to give many more criminals the
ability to succeed each year?
13) Today, many men and women have reason to believe
that the Federal government is intent on disarming the
American people as a means to significantly greater
control-- the way citizens in disarmed China, Germany,
the Soviet Union and Cuba are controlled. If these
people are right, does this concern you?
14) There are 360-450 citizens in America for every
law enforcement officer. (600,000/750,000 to
270,000,000) Do you believe each law enforcement
officer can protect 360-450 people from violent
criminals?
15) When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners
are presented as "extremists" in today's media.
American public servants surrounded by armed
bodyguards and/or living in neighborhoods with private
security are telling law-abiding citizens we cannot
carry or even own (some cities/states) a gun--not even
to protect ourselves and our families. Do you see the
hypocrisy? Can you understand why tolerance pushed
beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger?
Can you understand why being told we cannot enjoy the
same safety our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a
politician's life more important than your life? If
so, why?
16) Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned
electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly
proven to be biased against guns; it is not presenting
both sides of the issue. (See
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm) On the
other hand, http://www.citizensofamerica.org has a
media program that presents the pro-gun side of the
story. If you believe in "equality" regarding public
property, should COA be given free media time to
present their case? And just why IS the media so
biased in the first place? (And why might the
government be anti-gun?)
17) In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being
stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to
purchase a gun--even if her life has been threatened.
Why should law-abiding people in fear of their lives
wait 10 days to get a gun when criminals have no
waiting periods?
18) Criminals often kill people who've already turned
over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman
does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her,
she will be raped. Do you think the government has a
right to require women to submit to rape? If so, why?
19) Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted
with an armed rapist or murderer and leave our
ourselves at their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how
our society would revert to utter lawlessness if
everyone agreed to simply submit to armed criminals?
20) Many anti-gun people use child gun-related
accidents and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns.
Seeing that more children drown every year than are
killed by guns, do you support banning swimming pools?
21) Current federal law now limits the capacity of a
gun's magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their
guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out
alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3
hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm,
would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?
22) Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more
people die in cars every year than by guns--and no
Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own
cars. Because more people die every year in cars than
by guns, do you support a ban on cars? There are also
an alarming number of crimes committed under the
influence of alcohol. Would you support a ban on
alcohol considering it didn't work the last time they
tried it?
23) Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun
manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of
gun-related injuries which took place in their cities.
Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by
guns, do you support these mayors in suing car
manufacturers?
24) Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying
guns for self-defense. These same cities make
exceptions for people carrying money and jewels. Do
you agree that money and jewels are more important to
protect than people's lives?
25) The National Guard is paid by the Federal
government, occupies property leased to the Federal
government, uses weapons owned by the Federal
government, and punishes trespassers under Federal
law. Do you truly believe the National Guard is a
State agency?
26) The National Guard is also what is commonly called
the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way
of trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the
Constitution was referring to the National Guard with
the term "militia," how can we account for the fact
that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787--while
the National Guard was created by an act of Congress
in 1903?
27) The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal
government) gunned down 81 innocent women and children
and burned most of the evidence down to the ground in
Waco and have withheld evidence which would (and still
may) convict them of wrongdoing. They murdered Randy
Weaver's wife. The police and other state agencies
shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in
California. Why would you trust these government
agencies with fully automatic weapons but not trust a
law-abiding individual with a simple self-defense
handgun?
28) The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented
as "gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and
killers" in the communications media. Is it possible
they are depicted this way to sway public opinion
toward disliking guns? If so, why would the media and
the anti-gun politicians do that? How is this
different from the way the news organs of Nazi
Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba
propagandized against the segments of their societies
that opposed complete state control?
29) Many documented statements by anti-gun groups
claim that the Second Amendment refers to the power of
the States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of
the Constitution, we find the following: "the right of
the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," the "right of the
PEOPLE to be secure in their homes," "enumeration here
of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage
others retained by the PEOPLE," and "the powers not
delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the PEOPLE." Do you honestly
believe "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms" refers to the States but excludes Individuals?
30) Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most
portable, easiest-to-use, and most effective means of
self-defense. This is why they are used by police
officers. Denying people the right to use this tool
leaves them defenseless against criminals on the
street. Why do you advocate that law-abiding people
not be allowed to protect themselves with the best
means of self-defense available?
31) The Federal government and the United Nations (See
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesk...coming_yo.shtml)
have been working in unison for years to
systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even
remotely possible that the government has something
planned that so many Americans would be against that
it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see
that supporting their disarmament plans could be
working against the American citizens committed to
preserving freedom?
I do appreciate your thoughts on these matters and
look forward to your reply. I am committed to
answering every question you send me by giving each
one careful attention and a thorough, intelligent
reply as soon as possible. If you pose a question I
cannot intelligently address, I will seek out an
answer until I can.
Respectfully,
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Director
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com
Supporting editors of and contributors to this
document:
Inspired by original sentiments from Michael Z.
Williamson, daggers@indy.net
Brian Puckett, guns1776@earthlink.net
Jamie Jackson, jamie@spiritone.com
Angela Hunter Richardson, elan@fastlane.net
Gil Snodgrass, gilbert@peoplepc.com
Mike Ford, http://www.initiativefortexas.org