http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/growsbrooklyn.htm
A "BAD GUN LAW" GROWS IN BROOKLYN
By Nicki Fellenzer
I realize this column is called “Taking Aim.†I further realize that my modus operandi in the past has been to write a regular editorial “Taking Aim†at some freakish act of an anti-freedom maggot. However, my last column, in the form of a letter to Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, had a huge impact of those who read it, so…
…I’d like to continue the tradition of taking direct aim at the subject of my ire and publishing it for the whole world to see.
The subject in question this week is Charles Hynes. You may have heard of him. He’s the Brooklyn District Attorney with the common sense of plywood and the moral compass of a rabid wildebeest, who insists on wielding his power over the “little people†by prosecuting Ronald Dixon – a man who had the temerity to use a firearm to defend his family from a home invader without the permission of the nanny state.
Feel free to use the following letter as a template to send your own thoughts to this odious little dictator. The Brooklyn DA’s website is: http://www.brooklynda.org/
Director of Public Information: Jerry Schmetterer - [email protected]
Charles Hynes’ probable email address (judging by the others on that site) [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Hynes,
You disgust me.
I’ve learned over time that public officials often wield their power like a whip over the people who elected them. I’ve learned that an oath to most creatures who seek public office is little more than a photo op. And I realize that most petty dictators are simply impotent little nothings, who like to compensate for their powerlessness by imposing their irrational will on the very people who elected them to serve the public.
However, your abhorrent treatment of Ron Dixon makes even the lowest form of tyrannical oppression appear benign. I thought I’d seen or read about every form of human depravity possible…
…but then I encountered you.
It’s difficult for a decent human being to comprehend how a man who shot a home invader who had just entered the room of his baby son can be treated like a common criminal by the very government he trusts to protect him, but then you aren’t very decent, are you?
It’s near impossible for any thinking, logical individual to accept as rational that a man has the right to protect his home, but will be punished for using the most effective means available to him to do so. But then again, logic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.
And for the life of me, I cannot fathom how you can sleep at night knowing that your pathetic and ignorant vendetta against Ron Dixon could cost this loving father his career, his livelihood and his freedom. But, then again, vampires, who suck the blood of their innocent victims, operate at night and don’t sleep, do they?
What kind of immoral monster are you?
Never mind that the depraved, mindless regulations New York has foisted upon its citizens by forcing them to register their tools of self-defense are unconstitutional.
Never mind that such superfluous bureaucratic hoops will never stop any criminal from obtaining and using firearms in the commission of crimes. (Reference the law of Supply and Demand)
Never mind even that this veteran of the Armed Forces, who had moved to your God-forsaken, crime-ridden socialist hellhole was in the process of registering his private property with your oppressive bureaucracy.
Never mind all that. Let’s focus on your absurd contention that Dixon had no right to have that gun, as you were recently quoted in a news source. "We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun." Putting aside the glaring contradiction in that statement - are you familiar with a little document called the United States Constitution, Mr. Hynes? It’s a small, inconsequential article that is the LAW OF THE LAND. Let me remind you what the Second Amendment to that document says:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â€
Don’t worry, I won’t bore you with historical quotes from the Founding Fathers confirming the right of Ronald Dixon to own that gun. Contrary to what many of my acquaintances claim, I doubt you’re ignorant – callous and sanctimonious, but not ignorant.
As far as I can remember New York is still part of the United States, isn’t it? It’s still bound by the Constitution, right? So, when did petty wannabe dictators in three-piece suits acquire the power to pick and choose from the Constitution only the parts that appeal to them, like a cheap buffet?
Let’s get something straight, Mr. Hynes: no pathetic little would-be tyrant has the right to decide what Mr. Dixon’s rights are, especially when those rights are clearly enumerated in the US Constitution. Let’s get another thing straight, Mr. Hynes: regardless what absurd laws and regulations the brainless lot of politicians in New York saw it fit to pass, the moral principle doesn’t change. The God-given right to defend oneself using the most effective tool on the market – a firearm – cannot morally become a criminal act, simply because a band of frothing, anti-freedom zealots declare it as such.
I get the distinct impression your pious braying about the law, about just consequences and about the holy virtue of prosecuting gun crimes is just so much smoke and mirrors. What you’re really trying to do is conceal your impotence by making an example out of a righteous man – by making a criminal of a peaceable citizen through bureaucracy.
You see, Mr. Hynes – we, the people know criminals don’t care about gun registration laws. We the people also know that the vast majority (80%) of criminals who commit crimes using firearms don’t register them, but rather obtain them through illegal means. And we the people furthermore realize that registering the private property of law-abiding, peaceable citizens will do nothing to prevent crime. We realize you’re frustrated and powerless against the criminal element. You can’t stop them from obtaining guns, so the only thing you can do is make an example of Ronald Dixon to show that you’re capable of doing SOMETHING – even though that something is morally and ethically abhorrent. We also know prosecuting “gun crime,†reflects positively on you on paper.
Question is – how does your paltry campaign against Ron Dixon sit on your conscience? How does it feel to look at your own powerlessness and sacrifice Ron Dixon at the altar of your own inadequacy? How does it feel to ruin a man’s life just to put another notch on your prosecutorial bedpost?
I hope you’re ashamed.
I hope every last Brooklyn resident who ever cast a vote in your direction is ashamed.
You disgust me.
Nicki Fellenzer
A "BAD GUN LAW" GROWS IN BROOKLYN
By Nicki Fellenzer
I realize this column is called “Taking Aim.†I further realize that my modus operandi in the past has been to write a regular editorial “Taking Aim†at some freakish act of an anti-freedom maggot. However, my last column, in the form of a letter to Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, had a huge impact of those who read it, so…
…I’d like to continue the tradition of taking direct aim at the subject of my ire and publishing it for the whole world to see.
The subject in question this week is Charles Hynes. You may have heard of him. He’s the Brooklyn District Attorney with the common sense of plywood and the moral compass of a rabid wildebeest, who insists on wielding his power over the “little people†by prosecuting Ronald Dixon – a man who had the temerity to use a firearm to defend his family from a home invader without the permission of the nanny state.
Feel free to use the following letter as a template to send your own thoughts to this odious little dictator. The Brooklyn DA’s website is: http://www.brooklynda.org/
Director of Public Information: Jerry Schmetterer - [email protected]
Charles Hynes’ probable email address (judging by the others on that site) [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Hynes,
You disgust me.
I’ve learned over time that public officials often wield their power like a whip over the people who elected them. I’ve learned that an oath to most creatures who seek public office is little more than a photo op. And I realize that most petty dictators are simply impotent little nothings, who like to compensate for their powerlessness by imposing their irrational will on the very people who elected them to serve the public.
However, your abhorrent treatment of Ron Dixon makes even the lowest form of tyrannical oppression appear benign. I thought I’d seen or read about every form of human depravity possible…
…but then I encountered you.
It’s difficult for a decent human being to comprehend how a man who shot a home invader who had just entered the room of his baby son can be treated like a common criminal by the very government he trusts to protect him, but then you aren’t very decent, are you?
It’s near impossible for any thinking, logical individual to accept as rational that a man has the right to protect his home, but will be punished for using the most effective means available to him to do so. But then again, logic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.
And for the life of me, I cannot fathom how you can sleep at night knowing that your pathetic and ignorant vendetta against Ron Dixon could cost this loving father his career, his livelihood and his freedom. But, then again, vampires, who suck the blood of their innocent victims, operate at night and don’t sleep, do they?
What kind of immoral monster are you?
Never mind that the depraved, mindless regulations New York has foisted upon its citizens by forcing them to register their tools of self-defense are unconstitutional.
Never mind that such superfluous bureaucratic hoops will never stop any criminal from obtaining and using firearms in the commission of crimes. (Reference the law of Supply and Demand)
Never mind even that this veteran of the Armed Forces, who had moved to your God-forsaken, crime-ridden socialist hellhole was in the process of registering his private property with your oppressive bureaucracy.
Never mind all that. Let’s focus on your absurd contention that Dixon had no right to have that gun, as you were recently quoted in a news source. "We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun." Putting aside the glaring contradiction in that statement - are you familiar with a little document called the United States Constitution, Mr. Hynes? It’s a small, inconsequential article that is the LAW OF THE LAND. Let me remind you what the Second Amendment to that document says:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â€
Don’t worry, I won’t bore you with historical quotes from the Founding Fathers confirming the right of Ronald Dixon to own that gun. Contrary to what many of my acquaintances claim, I doubt you’re ignorant – callous and sanctimonious, but not ignorant.
As far as I can remember New York is still part of the United States, isn’t it? It’s still bound by the Constitution, right? So, when did petty wannabe dictators in three-piece suits acquire the power to pick and choose from the Constitution only the parts that appeal to them, like a cheap buffet?
Let’s get something straight, Mr. Hynes: no pathetic little would-be tyrant has the right to decide what Mr. Dixon’s rights are, especially when those rights are clearly enumerated in the US Constitution. Let’s get another thing straight, Mr. Hynes: regardless what absurd laws and regulations the brainless lot of politicians in New York saw it fit to pass, the moral principle doesn’t change. The God-given right to defend oneself using the most effective tool on the market – a firearm – cannot morally become a criminal act, simply because a band of frothing, anti-freedom zealots declare it as such.
I get the distinct impression your pious braying about the law, about just consequences and about the holy virtue of prosecuting gun crimes is just so much smoke and mirrors. What you’re really trying to do is conceal your impotence by making an example out of a righteous man – by making a criminal of a peaceable citizen through bureaucracy.
You see, Mr. Hynes – we, the people know criminals don’t care about gun registration laws. We the people also know that the vast majority (80%) of criminals who commit crimes using firearms don’t register them, but rather obtain them through illegal means. And we the people furthermore realize that registering the private property of law-abiding, peaceable citizens will do nothing to prevent crime. We realize you’re frustrated and powerless against the criminal element. You can’t stop them from obtaining guns, so the only thing you can do is make an example of Ronald Dixon to show that you’re capable of doing SOMETHING – even though that something is morally and ethically abhorrent. We also know prosecuting “gun crime,†reflects positively on you on paper.
Question is – how does your paltry campaign against Ron Dixon sit on your conscience? How does it feel to look at your own powerlessness and sacrifice Ron Dixon at the altar of your own inadequacy? How does it feel to ruin a man’s life just to put another notch on your prosecutorial bedpost?
I hope you’re ashamed.
I hope every last Brooklyn resident who ever cast a vote in your direction is ashamed.
You disgust me.
Nicki Fellenzer
