Still a bit of touching up to do on this (just finished) but I figured I'd share with ya'll before I submit to my local Newspaper:
Senator Tarr & Representative Ferrante,
I would like to express my sincere disdain for many of the proposed amendments found in Governor Patrick's legislation entitled "An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth."
As a long-time, responsible, firearms owner and enthusiast, I feel that many of Governor Patrick’s proposed amendments, to what are already some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the United States, do little to effectively address the issue of gun related violence here in Massachusetts, and only penalize upstanding citizens like myself.
I am a firm believer in a law abiding citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms. As an active member of my community, teacher, and father-to-be, I am also fully in agreement that certain common sense safeguards must be in place to protect members of our society from the criminal element and/or those who do not possess the mental faculties required to responsibly possess a firearm. Many of Governor Patrick’s proposed laws will do little to help safeguard the members of our great commonwealth from the epidemic levels of violence prevalent in our nation, but they will most certainly help to further erode the civil liberties that keep our country what it is today: Free, independent and strong.
The United States of America was founded on the premise that every citizen would be allotted the right to a life devoid of tyranny and oppression. This right has been fought for via speech, assembly, and, when necessary, physical force, since the 1700s. My late father, a member of the United States Army 503[SUP]rd[/SUP] Military Police Battalion, stood well armed and shoulder-to-shoulder with his comrades in 1962 to support efforts which ensured that former U.S. Air Force veteran and African American, James Merideth, could attain the same educational opportunities that his white counterparts in Oxford, Mississippi so readily enjoyed. Many of the rights we as members of this great country take for granted today were secured by the very object that numerous politicians throughout the U.S. would like to remove from the hands of their constituents: the modern day firearm.
As unlikely as it may be that the United States of America will ever experience a tyrannical government hell bent on sending anyone opposing it’s political agenda off to the gulags, the fact that we as citizens (currently) maintain the right to bear arms bolsters the ability of the people to stand up to injustice should the power of speech and assembly fail. Not all members of our beloved community, Commonwealth and Country prefer to place blind faith in the utopian idea that the Government will always be there for us during times of great need or that it will always and forever operate with our best interests in mind.
Although I choose to not align myself directly with any particular political party, I am American to the core and maintain a very liberal perspective when it comes to all things civil liberties related. People have the right in this country to determine their elected officials, their sexual preference and to voice their opinions; I’m confident that the maintenance of said rights is something that every liberal amongst us would agree is of paramount concern. That being said, it perplexes me as to how one could call themselves a liberal while concurrently calling for the reduction, or downright elimination, of the very right that allows us, as citizens of this great land, to protect the principles of freedom we so reverently embrace.
In closing, I urge you to call for additional time for reflection on this matter and the allocation of resources that will better address the issue of gun related violence. Eliminating a duly licensed owner’s ability to legally purchase 10 round magazines, buy more than one gun per month, or own a semi-automatic rifle will do nothing to stem the violence we’d all like to see eradicated not only here in the Bay State, but throughout the country as a whole. Addressing issues such as mental health, poverty and the flow of illegal weapons that makes the vast majority of gun related violence possible to begin with, are all areas that constitute much greater concern.
Many of our elected officials are looking for a quick solution to the very complex issue of gun violence by greatly restricting the ammunition, feeding devices and classifications of firearms we, the law abiding citizens of the Commonwealth, have access to and legal ownership of. I hope that you will not follow suit.
Sincerely and respectfully,
JRM
Senator Tarr & Representative Ferrante,
I would like to express my sincere disdain for many of the proposed amendments found in Governor Patrick's legislation entitled "An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth."
As a long-time, responsible, firearms owner and enthusiast, I feel that many of Governor Patrick’s proposed amendments, to what are already some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the United States, do little to effectively address the issue of gun related violence here in Massachusetts, and only penalize upstanding citizens like myself.
I am a firm believer in a law abiding citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms. As an active member of my community, teacher, and father-to-be, I am also fully in agreement that certain common sense safeguards must be in place to protect members of our society from the criminal element and/or those who do not possess the mental faculties required to responsibly possess a firearm. Many of Governor Patrick’s proposed laws will do little to help safeguard the members of our great commonwealth from the epidemic levels of violence prevalent in our nation, but they will most certainly help to further erode the civil liberties that keep our country what it is today: Free, independent and strong.
The United States of America was founded on the premise that every citizen would be allotted the right to a life devoid of tyranny and oppression. This right has been fought for via speech, assembly, and, when necessary, physical force, since the 1700s. My late father, a member of the United States Army 503[SUP]rd[/SUP] Military Police Battalion, stood well armed and shoulder-to-shoulder with his comrades in 1962 to support efforts which ensured that former U.S. Air Force veteran and African American, James Merideth, could attain the same educational opportunities that his white counterparts in Oxford, Mississippi so readily enjoyed. Many of the rights we as members of this great country take for granted today were secured by the very object that numerous politicians throughout the U.S. would like to remove from the hands of their constituents: the modern day firearm.
As unlikely as it may be that the United States of America will ever experience a tyrannical government hell bent on sending anyone opposing it’s political agenda off to the gulags, the fact that we as citizens (currently) maintain the right to bear arms bolsters the ability of the people to stand up to injustice should the power of speech and assembly fail. Not all members of our beloved community, Commonwealth and Country prefer to place blind faith in the utopian idea that the Government will always be there for us during times of great need or that it will always and forever operate with our best interests in mind.
Although I choose to not align myself directly with any particular political party, I am American to the core and maintain a very liberal perspective when it comes to all things civil liberties related. People have the right in this country to determine their elected officials, their sexual preference and to voice their opinions; I’m confident that the maintenance of said rights is something that every liberal amongst us would agree is of paramount concern. That being said, it perplexes me as to how one could call themselves a liberal while concurrently calling for the reduction, or downright elimination, of the very right that allows us, as citizens of this great land, to protect the principles of freedom we so reverently embrace.
In closing, I urge you to call for additional time for reflection on this matter and the allocation of resources that will better address the issue of gun related violence. Eliminating a duly licensed owner’s ability to legally purchase 10 round magazines, buy more than one gun per month, or own a semi-automatic rifle will do nothing to stem the violence we’d all like to see eradicated not only here in the Bay State, but throughout the country as a whole. Addressing issues such as mental health, poverty and the flow of illegal weapons that makes the vast majority of gun related violence possible to begin with, are all areas that constitute much greater concern.
Many of our elected officials are looking for a quick solution to the very complex issue of gun violence by greatly restricting the ammunition, feeding devices and classifications of firearms we, the law abiding citizens of the Commonwealth, have access to and legal ownership of. I hope that you will not follow suit.
Sincerely and respectfully,
JRM
