My open letter is in response
to your indignant comments to Colin Powell, concerning the United
Nations and Mr. Ashcroft's Second Amendment interpretation.
Specifically, the right of individuals to keep and bear
arms.
Why is it, that within the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights,
the rights of the "people" are correctly interpreted as referring
to the rights of "individuals", and yet, only within the Second
Amendment, is the word "people", allegedly intended by our Founding
Fathers to denote a collective or state right? If it is your position
that the Second Amendment is addressing only a collective or state right, then,
for the purposes of clarification and uniformity, we should
immediate replace the words "people" and "persons" with the word
"state", in all aforementioned Amendments.
Upon performing this minor
alteration, we can all feel certain that our 50 states will be
comforted in knowing that they now have a right to freely
express their religion beliefs. And, perhaps, our state
governments can now be secure in the knowledge that they are free to
speak and peaceably assemble. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
will certainly bring a sense of well-being to our states. Each
state can rejoice in the understanding that they cannot be arrested
without a warrant, to be issued only upon probable cause. That the life, limb
and property of each state cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same
offense. And, the state shall no longer be compelled in a criminal
case to give evidence against itself. Each state can now eagerly
anticipate the utterance of a police "Miranda" warning, prior
to its arrest and prosecution. Frankly, I think that it would be far
easier to abolish the Ninth Amendment altogether, rather than explain why
we believed it necessary to change its meaning from "Reserved rights
to the people" to "Reserved rights to the state". A few awakened individuals might feel compelled to question
this one. Lastly, we must now proceed to erode the Tenth Amendment. The
distortion of this Amendment is also quite simple. Henceforth, "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and back to the
states again, where such powers shall remain". Not to worry, Senator
Feinstein, as the Tenth Amendment will become quite confusing as
a result of this proposed change, and most citizens haven't a clue as to
what our Bill of Rights represent, I do not believe that many challenges
will arise to cause you consternation.
In this light, I should imagine that
anyone exhibiting even a trace of commonsense could not help but see the
preposterousness of such semantic manipulations. But, in reality, this is
precisely what politicians, equal in cunning to yourself,
and disingenuous judiciaries have contrived for the Second
Amendment, our principal defender of the Bill of Rights.
In a most illustrative example of
governmental corruption and hypocrisy, which, to my knowledge, has never been
challenged in a court of law, let us now examine the following scenario that
everyone can easily comprehend. If a state or local government were to violate
the civil rights of any individual (clearly defined and enumerated within the
Bill of Rights), the federal government and courts would immediately admonish
that offending state or city. Excluding, of course, the civil and unalienable
individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is
the only Constitutional protection to be singled out for, state and
local recognition or lack thereof, state interpretation, and
unconstitutional state infringements. Whereas, the states are seldom
permitted to infringe upon the civil rights contained within the remaining nine
Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government and courts
to assault the principles of the Second Amendment.
These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage,
yet, willfully and readily employed in every state within this nation.
Whether or not the majority of citizens
believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is
irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally
disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution
equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a
nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political
correctness of Socialism, or polls of public opinion in order to determine which
unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to
exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such
judgments. Not any individual (yourself included) or faction has ever
been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or
Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving
needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its
entirety.
The essence and intent of the
United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, have
most definitely ricocheted off your intellect. In presenting
a conclusion of such vital principles, the void of
honest scrutiny and practice should be of some concern to many. On the
other hand, your accomplishments as an illusionist have not all been in
vain or gone unnoticed. And, I must admit, that your skills as a
puppeteer are masterful and unsurpassed. Your successful career of swaying
the unwitting masses, can further be attributed to an artful
projection of mindless mob hysteria (i.e. Million Mom March). However, and sadly, I can only assume that you perceive
man's eternal search for truth, as a challenge to be avoided at all costs.
I suspect, that at this stage of your political career, many of your more
enlightened constituents must be quite dispirited by their lack of
ethical and effective representation. With talents such as
yours, comes a few small sacrifices. Unfortunately, for your
constituents.
For the continuance of U. S.
Sovereignty and welfare of the citizenry, I shall suggest that women of
your temperament should remain in the home, where damages resulting from a
lack of conscience and integrity, can easily be confined to a single family
dwelling. As it now stands, nationally, your ambitious and misguided political
efforts are placing our individual liberties and lives in
peril, rendering you unfit for any position of authority. Your several terms in office have revealed
unimpeachable evidence that you are an emotionally immature and shallow
person, an icon of senatorial arrogance. Your craftiness has promoted
nothing less harmful than anger, chaos and a divided nation. The
ambivalence that you have displayed towards our individual liberties, including
the right of self-defense, is unforgivable. No, it is
intolerable!
I am not so foolishly optimistic to believe
that any individual will ever dissuade you from your follies.
Although, the majority of voters have been overcome by a sense of
hopelessness, I can at least be content by collaborating with those several
thousands who are committed to exposing your subversive activities, through
open letters such as this. Madam, you deserve no more comfort provided by the
people. A vote of confidence must now be encouraged and organized by your
California constituents, with the intent of dislodging your
disloyal derriere from the coveted senatorial chair.
As a matter of form I bid you good
day,