i am always interested in what others write to their various representatives in regard to our right to bear arms. perhaps by sharing ideas we can encourage those who normally wouldn't, to get writing. here is my contribution; a letter to Rep. Mike Castle/Delaware/Republican/NRA Grade F
Congressman Castle,
I am a veteran of the Iraq War, having served as a cavalry scout with the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment in the initial occupation of Baghdad, from Apr 03 to Jul 04. Upon entering the service in August of 2001, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and like many veterans, consider this to be a lifetime charge, regardless of no longer being on active duty. I feel very passionately about safeguarding the basic principles of individual freedom contained within that document. I also feel very strongly that the noble men who set our nation on its path were convinced that there was one surefire way to ensure that the federal government would always respect the limits placed upon it, and more importantly, respect the will of the people. They intended that every law-abiding citizen have the right to bear arms; not just keep arms, but bear them, as a constant reminder of where the real authority in the country rested.
With control of both branches of the legislature in the hands of Democrats, I am quite convinced that extensive, national anti-gun legislation is almost a certainty. Sir, the bottom line is this: NO public servant that would seek to restrict the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms has the will of the people in mind; quite the contrary in fact. Any public servant that would propose or support such legislation is more interested in being a master than a servant. Without firearms, there is absolutely nothing to keep any government from simply disregarding the will and rights of the people as it wishes. This happens every day, all over the world.
I understand fully that we have problems with violent crime in every major urban area in this country. Wilmington's own problem is growing. And if I had a dime for every time I heard someone say, "we just need to get the guns off the street.", as a solution to our violent crime problem, I would be wealthy. As you know, the answer to violent crime is hardly that easy, as is evidenced by the outrageously and consistently ballooning violent crime rates in places such as Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, Camden, all of which have large numbers of very restrictive anti-gun laws. The urban battle-cry should be, "we just need to get the criminals off the street....permanently.", or, "We just need to find ways to help these communities encourage positive behaviour, rather than encouraging or even glamourizing bad behaviour." I am quite sure that the very intelligent individuals in both the House and Senate realize all too well that attacking the right to keep and bear arms, and even attacking access to them, serves only to restrict law-abiding gun owners, as criminals, by definition, will be disregarding whatever laws get in their way.
Mr. Castle, when Nancy Pelosi declared that the Democrats were ready to govern, she sent a clear message to many of us who pride ourselves in being alert; the message was that the concept of service to the public has been lost on many, many public servants, and that though they would not admit it publicly, they see themselves as anything but servants. I fear that this attitude is widespread in our federal government, and that it will translate into further attacks on the constitutional right that ensures our ability as citizens to secure all the others. If there is any doubt that our forefathers intended for the 2nd ammendment to be interpreted as a very individual right, then those with questions should spend time investigating their personal letters, and readily available quotations in regard to this subject.
Sir, there is a marked difference in your average gun-toting criminal, and your average patriot. The criminal stands for only that which is fleeting. If pressed, he is easily defeated. The patriot, on the other hand, stands for things of substance. He values principles that are dear to him, even holy. If pressed, his resolve is doubled, and re-doubled. Please sir, do your part to spread this message to your fellow public servants, and most importantly, do your utmost to protect this right that only a tyrant would seek to compromise. I implore you to fight every piece of anti-gun legislation that is proposed; every piece. there is no such thing as "common sense" anti-gun legislation. Each piece is simply a small step toward disarming the people, and any who would wish such a thing should be held with the utmost suspicion. Thank you sir, for your time.
Sincerely,
Andrew Daller
Congressman Castle,
I am a veteran of the Iraq War, having served as a cavalry scout with the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment in the initial occupation of Baghdad, from Apr 03 to Jul 04. Upon entering the service in August of 2001, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and like many veterans, consider this to be a lifetime charge, regardless of no longer being on active duty. I feel very passionately about safeguarding the basic principles of individual freedom contained within that document. I also feel very strongly that the noble men who set our nation on its path were convinced that there was one surefire way to ensure that the federal government would always respect the limits placed upon it, and more importantly, respect the will of the people. They intended that every law-abiding citizen have the right to bear arms; not just keep arms, but bear them, as a constant reminder of where the real authority in the country rested.
With control of both branches of the legislature in the hands of Democrats, I am quite convinced that extensive, national anti-gun legislation is almost a certainty. Sir, the bottom line is this: NO public servant that would seek to restrict the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms has the will of the people in mind; quite the contrary in fact. Any public servant that would propose or support such legislation is more interested in being a master than a servant. Without firearms, there is absolutely nothing to keep any government from simply disregarding the will and rights of the people as it wishes. This happens every day, all over the world.
I understand fully that we have problems with violent crime in every major urban area in this country. Wilmington's own problem is growing. And if I had a dime for every time I heard someone say, "we just need to get the guns off the street.", as a solution to our violent crime problem, I would be wealthy. As you know, the answer to violent crime is hardly that easy, as is evidenced by the outrageously and consistently ballooning violent crime rates in places such as Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, Camden, all of which have large numbers of very restrictive anti-gun laws. The urban battle-cry should be, "we just need to get the criminals off the street....permanently.", or, "We just need to find ways to help these communities encourage positive behaviour, rather than encouraging or even glamourizing bad behaviour." I am quite sure that the very intelligent individuals in both the House and Senate realize all too well that attacking the right to keep and bear arms, and even attacking access to them, serves only to restrict law-abiding gun owners, as criminals, by definition, will be disregarding whatever laws get in their way.
Mr. Castle, when Nancy Pelosi declared that the Democrats were ready to govern, she sent a clear message to many of us who pride ourselves in being alert; the message was that the concept of service to the public has been lost on many, many public servants, and that though they would not admit it publicly, they see themselves as anything but servants. I fear that this attitude is widespread in our federal government, and that it will translate into further attacks on the constitutional right that ensures our ability as citizens to secure all the others. If there is any doubt that our forefathers intended for the 2nd ammendment to be interpreted as a very individual right, then those with questions should spend time investigating their personal letters, and readily available quotations in regard to this subject.
Sir, there is a marked difference in your average gun-toting criminal, and your average patriot. The criminal stands for only that which is fleeting. If pressed, he is easily defeated. The patriot, on the other hand, stands for things of substance. He values principles that are dear to him, even holy. If pressed, his resolve is doubled, and re-doubled. Please sir, do your part to spread this message to your fellow public servants, and most importantly, do your utmost to protect this right that only a tyrant would seek to compromise. I implore you to fight every piece of anti-gun legislation that is proposed; every piece. there is no such thing as "common sense" anti-gun legislation. Each piece is simply a small step toward disarming the people, and any who would wish such a thing should be held with the utmost suspicion. Thank you sir, for your time.
Sincerely,
Andrew Daller
Last edited: