April 5, 2004

What you're about to read is long and somewhat hard to follow, but we felt it was most fair to post the entire letter, un-edited except for personal information. Following that is an e-mail exchange between the author and two of SAS's founding members, and another brief exchange between a supporter of the letter's author and one of SAS's founders.

An Open letter: The Second Amendment. 
 
The latest round of Second Amendment knee-jerk reactions appears to have taken the face of name calling and pointing fingers, digging dirt and yellow journalism.
 
Those who are for the Second Amendment seem to be going ballistic over the words of a woman on Capitol Hill who wants certain guns banned.  My question is why are there such hostile reactions to some woman who openly states she carries a concealed weapon and she is not afraid of using, whose husband is in the military business?  She could not even get enough votes to bring her bill up for consideration.
 
Sarah Brady - what happened to her husband is tragic and deplorable, and I too would have firm stance and be rather bitter.  On the other hand, the Brady's knew that hanging around a US President is a high risk occupation - you take the pay check and you take your chances.
 
We're going back into this whole AK-47 thing again.  Banning certain firearms does not mean anybody's rights are being taken away.
 
Palm size .22 semi automatic weapons are showing up on our school yards. The AK-47 semi automatic can be easily converted back into combat readiness. Banning these weapons does not mean your guns are being taken away or your rights are being violated.
 
Society does have the right to say what guns will not be sold.  Stop and think this through - let us traverse back in time to when the two men, who held the LAPD are bay for 45 minutes, walked into the gun store and legally purchased their AK-47s - at the same time you walk in and purchase an AK-47. What is the determining factor to ascertain malfeasance?  How does the store owner know who is the person with bad intentions or the person who has good intentions?  How does the government know?  You need to keep in mind all three of you are purchasing the same weapon legally.  What then is the criterion to predict who is going to do what with that weapon?
 
Ask yourself are you so willing to let the growing slaughter on our street be enhanced through fully automatic weapons so you can own an AK-47?  Why are the rights of the innocent people killed in cross fire during gang wars subservient to your right to purchase an AK-47 or any gun you so choose? Why are the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness of the
innocents subordinate? 
 
Last year in Minneapolis a 14 year old girl sitting at her dining room table was killed instantly when a stray bullet slammed into her chest and shredded her heart.  The stray bullet came from a gang fight.
 
A 4 year old was shot and killed because the gang members believed that she was a rival gang member.
 
These are not isolated incidents.
 
Take the palm size .22 semi-automatics with a 10 round magazine. These are showing up in places they should not.  We will not let the schools do search and seizure, we will not let the schools install metal detectors.  Some of these guns are taken from homes.  But what about the back alley gun dealer - someone who legally buys the guns and then turns around and sells them for a profit - we are a capitalist country and we don't infringe upon free enterprise.  We can't put the back alley gun dealer out of business because he/she purchased the guns legally.  Getting an FFL is not that difficult and I am surprised we are not seeing counterfeit ones on the street.
 
Metal detectors would probably have neutralized the slaughter in Colorado before it ever happened.  Search and seizure would have prevented it from going as far as it did.
 
How does the banning of a weapon easily concealed mean your rights are being taken away?
 
How does the banning of a weapon easily converted to full automatic mean your rights are being taken away?
 
Society does have the right to say a person will not carry a firearm on board an airplane.  Society does have a right to say you cannot bring a weapon into an establishment.  Society does have the right to say we are going to put the gun purchaser under tighter scrutiny. 
 
Squeeky Frome, a Manson family member, legally purchased a firearm and darn near sent Gerald Ford to the Promised Land.  John Hinckley Jr. legally purchased a firearm and came close to killing Ronald Reagan.  Viet Nam never would have happened had Jack Kennedy lived, but a mail order gun in the hands of a member of the well regulated militia made short order of that. Martin Luther King is not coming back anytime soon and he was the only person to provide sane leadership during the civil rights era. These are some of the success stories of your efforts to defend the second amendment as it now stands.
 
Yes, the Second Amendment does say you have a right to own a firearm, but those same rights extend to people who have never been committed to a psychiatric hospital - and there ARE those people who should be confined but escape the system.  There are people who as juveniles committed horrible violent acts and when they turn 18 their records were sealed forever.  Your rights extend to them also.
 
What then should be the determining factor?  I've heard the argument: I am a law abiding citizen.  What does that mean?  I spoke with a police officer and he told me a person cannot even drive one mile without committing an infraction.  Go 1 mile over the speed limit and you are no longer law abiding.  Cross against the signal - same thing.  Take a questionable deduction you are no longer law abiding and the IRS reports that tax cheating is a record levels - to the tune of 31 billion dollars.  Have a single portion of your house not up to current code you are no longer law abiding. The list is endless. 
 
The greater portion of American truly believes it is acceptable to ignore a law that they deem unreasonable.  Psychiatrists label this as Schizoid. Schizoid is a criminal mind set - not emotional issue.  Ignore a law or a tax law you think is unreasonable, you are no longer law abiding and you
have a criminal mind.
 
One group of people who are for the Second Amendment as it currently stands even has a hate list on their web site.  I spoke with an attorney and the perception of a terrorist threat is in the eyes of the recipient.  In this day in age with the number of very violent people out there - the names you published could influence one of these violent people to take hostile action against the people on the list.  That means you are a contributing factor and we are seeing "I was influenced by" used effectively as a defense in the courts.
 
There is a story about a King who visited the prison.  Convict after convict pleaded their innocence.  Finally the King came up to one man and said: I suppose you're innocent too?  The convict said: Nope. I committed the crime that got me here.  The kind told the jailers to let the man go free.  When asked why, the King replied I do not want this guilty man corrupting the rest of these innocent souls. 
 
Has anybody thought this through - if the Second Amendment is repealed how is it going to be enforced?  Neither the for or against have a clue. You cannot repeal the amendment without having enforcement.
 
We have determine that the greater portion of America is schizoid and we do tend to lie through our teeth so the "bring them in" is not going to work.
 
The buy back program failed - period.
 
To enforce the repeal of the Second Amendment then, we would have to shred the Bill of Rights.  This means forced entry by those acting on behalf of the government.  My question is would the against be empathetic if their door was blown open and a swat team comes sailing in their door?  Keep in mind we have not set up a conclusive and definitive determining factor protocol about who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. 
 
How is all this going to be funded - who is going to pay for the enforcement?  An income tax increase on an America that is at the highest level of unemployed since the great depression?  With record numbers of people filing bankruptcy we see what state our economy is in.
 
Who is going to conduct the enforcement?  Our military is strained, our law enforcement is strained and just who is going to be hired to enforce?  Where is that money going to come from?  We certainly can't employ the "well regulated militia" can we because they are not doing their job under the Amendments they so defend?
 
How about the penalty phase - where is the money going to come from to finance the penal system to house and maintain all these 'new' criminals.
 
We know a greater portion of Americans tend to lie through their teeth.  So the swat team blows your door down and asks you if you have firearms.  How do they know you are telling the truth?  Do they assume you are being honest and take the chance of you having illegal firearms?  Or do they assume you are lying and take hostile action?  Because of the number of illegal weapons out there and people who cannot legally have a gun but do, puts everyone under Probable Cause.  We would be back to the mentality of the Salem Witch Hunt Trials only this time it would be: Prove you are law-abiding.
 
Taking this a step further, arms are big business, and employ a significant number of people.  There are daughter companies making the after market products.  Then there are the companies that produce the bullets.
 
Repeal the Second and you will put a serious number of people out of work. The against can say that is the price we pay.  But they are ignoring the shareholders who will have lost their entire investments through no fault of their own - who are going to reimburse them?  How many of the people who sit in the shadows would be very upset - we are talking about the big people who make the millions off of firearms.  What about the soft money that is fed into the hands of the law makers?  Are they going to be pleased when the tax free dollars stop coming in? 
 
What about the black market - repeal the Second and you will create a whole new class of criminal enterprise.  There is a very rich family out east that made their money through bringing in illegal booze into this country during prohibition - so we know smuggling can be done almost legally.  We are losing the war on drugs - we know that tons of cocaine comes into this country undetected.  How are we going to protect the National Guard and Reserve forces armories against a well executed plan to steal the weapons? 
 
Americans love loop-holes and we exploit every one of them. A very clear case is the speed limits and the 10 mile per hour speedometer variant.  The speedometers in our cars are pretty accurate now, we know that - but we take the loop-hole and we drive 9 miles per hour over the speed limit. Unless the repeal, the enforcement and the penalty are written in a very specific detailed legal language to prevent the "In My Definition of the Word" it is just not going to work.  And, we can thank a grand jury, and a former president to let the "In My Definition of the Word" become a set precedence and it is a legal defense now.
 
There also seems to be the prevailing thought amongst the fors that they can use threats to get their way.  The bumper sticker: "I own a gun and I vote" is a threat - period.  The perception of the gravity of the threat is in the eye of the recipient, legally. The people who are against are getting death threats.  The well regulated militia, and we cannot differentiate the sane well regulated militia from the insane well regulated militia, are building the case for repeal all on your own.  The threats make you a very frighten entity that is ready to trample on mine and a majority of American's rights and you will resort to the use of deadly violence to get your way. 
 
I am reminded of Germany in the 1930's - vote the way I tell you to or you will suffer very badly.
 
Let us go back to the Second Amendment as it stands and bring it to the exact words: Amendment II  "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". We can go one of two ways with the words: "A well regulated militia".  Well regulated means rules, code of conduct, rules of engagement.  It means a structured organization.  Where then are the rules of the "well regulated
militia"?  Where is the structure defined? What and who compromises the well regulated militia - this question will become more relevant further in this discourse. The Supreme Court has said the militia means we the people that may be true, regardless, we cannot separate well regulated from the word militia.  That is the second amendment wording. Where is the training of this militia?  Geneva set about rules of combat and engagement and is this militia knowledgeable of the laws of warfare?  Does this militia know the laws governing the questioning and treatment of
prisoners of war?

Drive downtown during rush hour traffic and then try to tell me that we the people are a well regulated. Fist fights break out in toy stores during Christmas season - is that the meaning of well regulated? The military watches their people very closely and if someone in a position of grave responsibility shows any sign of mental weakness they are pulled and that means if they are taking anti-depressants, medication which can cause irritability, etc. too. How many of the 'well regulated militia" take such medications?  Does the well regulated militia have the same controls in place knowing that some of the well regulated militia is issuing death threats against people who do not agree with them?  You don't have the controls judging by the raw numbers of mood altering drugs that are produced and prescribed in this country and the well regulated militia members who
are using them.

We can look at it from this side also - is there an exclusionary criterion to being a member of the well regulated militia?  If there is no exclusion, then the Skin-Heads, the Neo-Nazi, the Klu Klux Klan and the American Communist Party are also members of the well regulated militia. Avowed enemies of this country are part of the well regulated militia that is supposed to protect this country. The KKK and the Nazis would love nothing better than to rebuild the gas chambers and the ovens and bring Dachau to terra firma americana.

There are certain minority groups that preach armed revolution and the genocide of every one who is white.  They too are part of your well regulated militia. If you want to use well regulated militia then I think we have a problem with your agendas and goals. Guilt by association.  There is no clause in the second amendment to leave out one group or another - it is a single statement. We can't use the argument that our forefathers could not have foreseen the rise of such organizations, because that would mean we would have to acknowledge our forefathers did not foresee semi-automatic weapons, American arming to the teeth and the ensuing problems we have today as a direct result of the Second.  

We also have green card holders in this country who danced in the streets just after 9/11 and openly state hostile and violent feelings towards this country.  They wish to see this country harmed. They too are part of the well regulated militia because they can purchase and bare arms. There are people out there who would give even Jack the Ripper night sweats and they own guns. The mafia is also part of the well regulated militia by the definition laid forth in the Second Amendment. Timothy McVeigh was part of the well regulated militia. Aldrich Ames was part of the well regulated militia.
 
 
I now want to draw your attention to:
Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"
 
Exactly what has this 'well regulated militia' done for this country in the last 200 years? Did you stop Al Capone?  Did you stop the attack on Pearl Harbor?  Did you neutralize the threat of missiles when the Soviet Union armed Cuba?
 
More people die on the American highways each year than the entire American body count in Viet Nam - what have you done to protect we the people.  Our freeways are a public danger.
 
The drunk driver is a public danger - and I ask, how many "well regulated militia" have driven under the influence of alcohol or gotten a DUI?  Two drinks, in one hour, containing alcohol is proven to impair ones judgment.
 
What did you do when a man and a boy went on that shooting spree, or the sniper that plagued an Ohio freeway? In both instances the people who did the shooting were also members of the well regulated militia, but, there were also causing public danger - is that why you chose to do nothing?
 
If your job is to prevent the government from becoming a tyrant, then can I draw your attention to the Constitution - there is NO provision for income tax. There is no provision for a standing military. There is no provision for conscription into the military.  Have you taken the government to war over that?
 
There is no provision in the Constitution that permits speed limits on our streets and freeways.  There is no provision prohibiting noisy neighbors to party all night.  You have done nothing to fight that.  But, we have laws and I'm sure, judging by what I see on the roads, there are those people who think a speed limit is a trampling of their rights by what they perceive as an oppressive government.
 
Did you stop the riots in Watts during the 60's?
 
If you take the government to armed conflict defending your rights to purchase and carry and you lose, which you will.  How many of you are going to sue for excessive use of force, wrongful death and trauma - probably 100% and you will completely ignore the fact you started it? To prove my point, look at Randy Weaver.  He resisted arrest, he committed a crime (sawing off shotguns), he was heavily armed and the government took action. Your militia member brought it upon himself. Not to mention he was an avowed white separatist and if you want to read their agenda go out and read Der Strumfront - it's in the web.
 
Again, my question is just exactly what have you done?  You, like everyone, demand the government stop terrorism and are quick to blame to government when it doesn't.  Yet, your demands to have a hands-off to the second amendment facilitated and enabled 9/11.
 
The people who committed 9/11 legally purchased firearms, took them aboard the planes and yet you shed tears over the incident.  But, you have to understand that under the present Second and Fifth Amendment, the terrorists were also part of the well regulated militia - in a way, 9/11 is one of your success stories.
 
Your efforts have armed the street gangs and the drug dealers - they too are part of your well regulated militia and entitled to the same protections you are. 
 
Thanks to you, psychotics who have eluded the mental health people can own a firearm just like you.
 
You sit comfortably far away from harm's way and try to tell us you are here to protect us.
 
How many militias have volunteered for independent duty on the south side of Chicago - a place where even the fire fighters get shot at while trying to stop a fire?  Name a single mission into Hell's Kitchen in New York? 
 
If you want to use this militia thing then let us look squarely at you. You have done nothing to secure a free state which is the exact wording of the Second Amendment. You have not stopped the growing violent crime rates in which other's rights are violated.  You have not stopped a single bullet from a drive by shooting catching innocent people in the deadly cross fire and their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness become subordinate to the right to own. 
 
Just what has the "well regulated militia" done except blame the government, fight the government every step of the way and demand your rights.
 
Let us look at the word secure contained in the Second Amendment - in Minnesota during hunting season traveling the highways and freeways in rural areas is taking your life into your own hands.  A deer rifle has a kill range of 1.5 miles.  A while ago, a kid riding a snowmobile was thought to be a deer.  What the authorities found was the snowmobile and the kid's lower torso.  What hit him was a round the created such a hydrostatic shock wave it blew his upper torso into shards. There was a fine red mist on the snow.  What has this 'well regulated' militia done to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for others?  What have you done proactively to protect the people from public danger?  Gun safety classes aren't cutting it any more and that is the best you can do? Very lame, people, because it is like putting a bandaide on a sucking chest wound. 
 
This country is a dangerous place and there are parts of it venturing out after dark should be classified as suicidal idealization in the DSM.  What has the militia done to secure the freedom of the citizens to be able to move about freely and without fear?  Don't try bringing up fighting for the right to keep and bare arms because the hoodlums, thanks to you, are more heavily armed than our own police. You have helped enforce the criminals' right to keep and bare arms - as long as they don't have a felony conviction in the last 10 years.  But I also add that the restriction is not in the
Amendments and I ask when are you going to start fighting for the rights of the felon to purchase a firearm?
 
The well regulated militia has not stopped the flood of illegal aliens into this country bringing with them criminals from their own country.  Some of the law abiding, well regulated militia people helped, for profit, the bringing of the criminals released from Cuban prisons to this country a few years back - direct violation of US law.
 
Other groups that you have helped to keep their rights to bare arms are the KKK, the skin-heads and the Neo-Nazi movement, the American Nazi Party, and the Communist Party.  Under the Second Amendment, they too are part of this "well regulated militia" by virtue of citizenship and the Second Amendment and all of them are avowed enemies of the US Government and our present way of life. 
 
With your fight for the right to keep and bare arms, you are lending assistance in the arming of certain groups who advocate revolution, violent overthrow of the US Government and execution of every member of the white race. 
 
How many of the "law abiding well regulated militia" illegally carry concealed weapons? 
 
The Fifth Amendment clearly holds you blameless, and indemnifies you, in the defense of our country during time of public danger.  You have done nothing to secure peace and tranquility of our cities.
 
Where were you when Minneapolis earned the title Murderapolis nation wide? Where were you in the defense of the citizenry because it is we the people who are the state? The amendments as they stand are to be taken in the full wording and content You cannot pick and choose what parts apply. You cannot pretend to be the defense of America, demanding your rights and then sit back and you neglect to fulfill your self assigned responsibilities as you see mandated in the Fifth Amendment. 
 
Why should you have rights if you cannot bring yourselves to, and fail to, execute your duties as specified in the Amendments?
 
Is your agenda and solution the complete arming of anyone living in this country?  Hitler needed Germany to be totally armed.
 
Are you saying that you are loyal Americans but you fight against the government which is America?  Are you loyal Americans like Aldrich Ames - Ames was a member of this well regulated militia and did serious damage to the American Government? Or, "patriots" like Timothy McVeigh who took 168 innocent lives in retaliation for what he perceived as government tyranny at Waco, Texas?
 
I have heard the argument that Hitler took all the guns away - not really, he took the people who owned guns and put them in the polizei which in turned was trained by the military.  Hitler was limited to the size of his military, but nothing was said about the size of the police force. Once he started rearming the old guns were taken away and replaced with the K-98. He didn't take the guns away, he armed Germany.  Even children, the Hitler Youth, were trained in, and carried arms.
 
I've heard the argument that Lenin & Stalin took away all the guns - exactly where did their firepower for the October revolution come from? They needed the people with guns to effect the blood bath.  The killing of the Tzar was done by citizens who owned guns. Stalin did not take the guns away for his motto was where there is a person, there is a problem. Where there is no person, there is no problem.  That was an over the board statement that had nothing to do with guns.
 
You were not there when all this happened, I have people who were.  
 
The Taliban and the forces of Bin Laden are citizens with guns.  The SA was citizens with guns. The Viet Cong were citizens armed with guns. Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelley, Bonnie & Clyde, John Dillinger were citizens with guns.  The list is endless.
 
You have failed to help congress in enacting laws to protect us.  You have not offered a single solution to the inappropriate and alarming arming of the American citizenry.
 
There are several solutions:
1.)    Accept the fact that society does have the right to say what weapons will be sold and not sold.
2.)    Accept the fact that we have people in America who should not now, nor ever, own a firearm. Help define the criteria. If you are taking mood altering medications and/or a history of alcohol abuse you should not own a firearm.
3.)    Work together to bring about tougher gun controls and tougher penalties.
a.)    Continue to fight and argue until such time as congress has said we've had enough and we're sick to death of the whole mess.  Congress has proven they are capable and willing to repeal an amendment.  See: The 18th Amendment, the Volstead Act. Or Congress puts a total ban on the sale of firearms - period.
b.)    Continue to support and fight for the right to keep and bear arms of people who would harm America, those who call for violent overthrow and genocide, and the people who call Adolph Hitler a god. And, those people who hide their faces behind sheets.
c.)    Stop crying about 9/11, your efforts helped bring the whole thing about. Accept the fact your efforts indirectly make you an accessory.
 i.) Pull out all the stops, no registration, no background checks, no waiting period and revert back to the days of the old west or Capone's Chicago.
ii.)  Force the funeral homes to do an IPO - they are going to get very busy and very profitable.
iii.) Every one of us who don't agree with you to unfettered access to firearms, make arrangements with Canada and deport us.
 
My next question is: are there any fors who are going to send me death threats?  If so, my email address is: (deleted).  If you send a death threat, don't hide behind an anonymous letter, give me your real name, real address and your real telephone number.  If you hide who you are, then you are a coward and I'd prefer you snaked back down the hole in the outhouse from whence you came. If you cannot accept the consequences of your actions then you should not be entrusted with a firearm. 

I really don't want to hear this: "Well, we're fighting for your rights too" What rights are you fighting for? I'm not interested in owning a firearm so I could care less about the Second Amendment.  Give me a list of what of my rights are you fighting for, minus the provisions of the Second Amendment?  I seriously doubt you can produce such a list.
 
I've also heard that if the right to own firearms is taken away, that means the government will take away more rights.  People, first off, stay in present moment and stop trying to use tarot card prediction scare tactics. Secondly, are you afraid of Homeland Security - if so, then you have something you are hiding and you should be worried. The government has every right to do what they need to do to prevent the actions of terrorists and others sworn to harm America.
 
You didn't think a thing about the wire taps that were used to convict John Gotti.  But you're afraid that the government might look into you. Again, you don't provide a definitive and comprehensive, bullet proof, determination protocol to sort the good from the bad. Under Probable Cause, because the way things are now: Drug dealers, drug cartels, mafia, far right fringe groups, criminals, etc. what do you want to government to do except start the sorting process.
 
Let's suppose you and your neighbor order your copy of the Turner Diaries.  There is a 50/50 chance one of the two of you might have evil deeds on your mind.  Does the government do nothing until we have another Oklahoma City, or should the government be alerted that two people ordered this book and take a deeper look to make sure one of the two of you isn't planning another attack on America?  Keep in mind that McVeigh had a bronze star and he too pleaded innocent - look at how far that got us. 
 
I am a writer and I write articles and submit them via e-mail.  Some of my articles have caused controversy because I take a stand and defend it - without a doubt some of my writings have been monitored.  Does this bother me, no, for if the magazine or the web site doesn't publish my musings at least I do have an audience and somebody reads them.  I can almost here the feds now - Ok, the rabbi is at it again - what stand has he taken on this or that subject.
 
For the record, I am not against gun ownership. I am for tighter controls. I am for tougher sentencing. I am for the police being unshackled to do their job.  I do not believe that a police presence in high crime areas constitutes profiling.
 
I am for confiscating, and enjoining, someone who tries to go through Airport security with a firearm.  The excuse: I forgot I had it in my purse or briefcase means only one thing. If they cannot remember where their firearm is it proves they are irresponsible and they should not be entrusted
with a firearm.
 
I do not own a firearm - simply because I can't see the purpose of it.  The State of New York vs. Bernard Getz proved how well the self defense angle works.  If a criminal suspects you are carrying a firearm they will be more apt to use deadly force up front.  If a criminal breaks in to your house/apartment and they suspect you have firearms they will be more apt to shoot first and ask questions later (See: Truman Capote's In Cold Blood).  If a criminal suspects you own firearms - you stand an excellent chance of becoming a robbery victim. 
 
I am against unfettered access to firearms.  I am against firearms that can be easily concealed. I resent having to be in the same establishment with someone who is carrying a concealed weapon because I do not know their mental state - my rights are violated.
 
One gun owner, part of the "well regulated militia", went so far as to suggest that wolves should be required to get hunting licenses at a community meeting here in Minnesota. That one defies all logic and the guy should be a prime candidate for Prozac.
 
I have seen gun owners with a permit to carry argue and make an absolute ruckus that their rights are being trampled on when they walk into an establishment that posts: No Gun Allowed.  The key words trampling on rights - the gun owners are entering private property and they are trampling on the rights on the establishment's owners and customers.
 
I watched a person of the well regulated militia come to a screaming match at his Doctors office because they told him not to bring his gun into the building. The office staff told him to leave and then guy went into a screaming fit because they were denying him medical attention.  This guy proves again that the well regulated militia is ready and willing to step on anyone and they do so with the emotional blackmail of a three year old.
 
I lived in rural America for several years. I got sick and tired of replacing windows blasted out because of hunters, our property was marked NO HUNTING and I was always shagging hunters off our land - 6 out 10 had alcohol on their breath. Our well regulated militia in action, eh?
 
What made the whole matter that much worse was the fact that 50% of the vehicles of those trespassing on my land had a decal in the window bearing three letters on it and we're not talking IBM.
 
You are not who you think you are - that is self delusion and I can only pray, and as horrible as it may sound, that you or one of your family members becomes a victim of your success and efforts.  Only then will you join hands with Sarah Brady and call for the end of this insanity.

Following is the series of email exchanges between Rabbi "B", SAS founder Dianne Sawyer, and SAS founder Deb Altrath. None of the text has been edited.
 

Founder and President Dianne Sawyer's correspondence:

Sir or Madam,

My mother died at the age of 27 years at the hands of my father who beat her skull in so badly with a baseball that the medical people had to scoop her brains up out of the front yard.

She was a stunningly beautiful woman with five little children who were passed among relatives to raise.

I can vouch for the horror of being the very victim you pray we will become. I AM one. There was no outcry after her death to outlaw baseball bats, even though they can become tools of death in the hands of an evil person.

I can only pray that you will NEVER become a victim because I would not wish that your family has to go through what my family has. And I will continue to fight for your rights, even if you don't want them -- or deserve them. If you are ever faced with having to choose between your life or the person who will take your life, I can only pray (and will) that you have the means to protect yourself.

Dianne Sawyer

Second Amendment Sisters, Inc.
President and Co-Founder
www.2asisters.org
"Self defense is a basic human right™."
 

Ms Sawyer,

How does a baseball bat equate with firearms? The line is not exactly straight.

You are not fighting for my rights to buy & carry a firearm, you are fighting for the rights of the criminals, the Skin Heads, The Neo-Nazis, and all the other hatred groups to purchase and carry firearms.

Last year, a 14 year old girl here in Minneapolis was sitting at her dining room table when a stray bullet from a drive-by shooting slammed into her chest, shredded her heart and left an exit wound the size of a man's fist. You are not fighting for her rights, you are fighting for the rights of her killers to purchase and carry firearms. 4 years ago, a 4 year old child was mistaken to be a rival gang member and she was shot dead - who from the Second Amendment people shed a tear or an outcry. The only outcry I hear from the Second Amendment people is that their rights are being removed because there are those who want to restrict certain firearms.

JFK and Martin Luther king were victims of yours and other organizations success stories of keeping the Second Amendment as it is written. The sucess of unfettered access to firearms.

Your fight has led the criminal to be armed, and now that they are, you want to be armed.

It is a shame about your mother - I will say a kaddish. My father liked to bounce my mother around, as well as myself - I have seen enough brutality. But, my mother picked up a high heeled shoe and whopped my dad in the forehead - damn near killed him and a shoe is not a firearm.

But, I do not need you to fight for my right to own and carry a firearm. At what point will there be enough violence and blood shed? At what point do people say: this second amendment has to go? What is it going to take?

In my treaties, I also included observations of what I have seen from Second Amendment people. Other rights seem to be subverient to yours.

You also failed to read the part about when I lived in rural Minnesota - myself and the house I lived in had been shot at many times by deer hunters. Some coming very close to to killing the occupants of my house (a woman and her three children). Having said that, and having an uncle who was a police officer killed in the line of duty because some badnick shot him at point blank range.

I had an uncle on my mother's side - he, in a severe state of depression, went to the store and purchased a shotgun - he came home and blew his brains out. You don't need to tell me about splattered brain matter - I've been there and done that.

Your fight is not for the rights of either of my uncles, your fight is to keep American arming to it's teeth.

With that, I invite you to reread what I wrote outside of the box and honestly look at who's rights you are fighting for? Because, you are not fighting for rights of people who have been shot down. As a Jew I am disheartened that your organization is also fighting for the right to purchase and carry by the Ku Klux Klan, The Skin-Heads, Neo-Nazis and the American Nazi Party.

Rabbi "MB"
 

Rabbi "B",

"How does a baseball bat equate with firearms? The line is not exactly straight."

The line is indeed very straight. The agony of my family was no less than the agony of yours. My mother is no less dead than the people you speak of in your email.

Dianne Sawyer

Second Amendment Sisters, Inc.
President and Co-Founder
www.2asisters.org
"Self defense is a basic human right™."

Back to YOUR LETTERS