Dear Senator Buono,
We
cease to be a democracy when we base the rights of the law-abiding upon the actions
of the corrupt. We cease to be a democracy when the existence of humanity’s
most basic rights are reconsidered, compromised, and threatened. We cease to be
America
when we walk upon the very soil that drank so greedily the blood of our
forefathers, and forget the very reason they left their families, lost their
bodies, and sacrificed their lives. We need only to look back to history to
grasp fully the repercussions that will be dealt with when the right to bear
arms is removed.
Hitler,
Stalin, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il: these men all bear a common trait. Before
rising to power, before destroying the livelihoods of billions of people, they
ensured that the right to bear arms was subdued. People claim “those are
communist leaders, so that is a given statement”. This is exactly my point,
however. Must the leaders of a democracy such as the United States emulate the very
leaders that killed millions and destroyed the livelihoods of billions more?
Must the loss of our freedom be the price of our ignorance?
“All political power comes
from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns,
that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” –Mao Zedong, Nov 6,
1938
Mao Zedong killed
an estimated 78 million people when he forced an industrial revolution upon the
Chinese people. That is 25% of the current United States population. During
this time, he stated “The Communist party must
control the guns.” If the Chinese people, who outnumbered the Chinese
military vastly, had never had their guns removed, there is no doubt that
not only would these figures decrease drastically, but Mao Zedong and his men
would have faced severe consequences for the people they murdered.
Adolf
Hitler, the infamous leader of the fascist Nazi party, stated “The most foolish
mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess
arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is
a sine qua non for the
overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native
police.”
The Soviet Union , in
1929, established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that
figure had risen to 61,911,000.
Joseph
Stalin said, and I quote “The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” And “We
don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”
Stalin
here is fully acknowledging that a gun provides the holder with power; in this
case, the people.
In
his address to the Italian senate in 1931, Benito Mussolini stated “The
measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of
the so-called subversive elements… They were elements of disorder and
subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to
confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.
This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given
satisfactory results.”
In
stark contrast, we have George Washington, who said “Firearms stand
next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's
liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
Thomas
Jefferson stated “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather
to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed man.”
James
Madison said "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed
which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ...
(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Benjamin
Franklin stated “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
“Guns
are inanimate. Emotionless. Immobile. They have no ability, means or desire to
commit crime or violence. One of the fundamental principals of a free society
is (that) you are not punished for the
acts of others. You are not deprived of your rights and freedom because
of the criminal activity of others. (Aside from aiding and abetting criminal
acts) Instead of trying to control the guns that are properly employed by the
vast majority of the millions of decent and law abiding gun owning citizens,
why don't we control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership? I rather
detest employing the platitudinous old cliché, "Guns don't kill people,
people kill people", but it's true.” *
George
Washington, our first president, a man who fought throughout the revolution and
watched as the soil was soaked with the blood of patriots knew that “A free
people ought to be armed”. The hundreds of gun owners who traveled by the
busload to the offices of officials to make their presence known knew the very
same thing. If the rights of gun owners are compromised, so is the very
democracy for which we stand.
Mohandas
Gandhi stated “Among the
many misdeeds of the British rule in India
Ask
this question. In whose footsteps shall we follow? Hitler or Washington? Stalin
or Jefferson? Zedong or Gandhi? Castro or Lincoln? Hugo Chavez or Patrick
Henry? Mussolini or Adams?
As
an American citizen, I have decided. The reasoning is obvious, and we must not
look for the temporary solution, but the longstanding one. Control of the
criminals, not the objects they use, is necessary. Upon the removal of
firearms, the criminals will still stand. And so will the violence.
Is
a weed destroyed from its root, or from the leaf?
Sincerely,
Ashley M. Goncalves
