Dear Senator Baldwin,
The Second Amendment says that the security of a free state depends upon the right of "the people" and "well-organized militia" - two overlapping concepts - to bear arms; and "bear arms" means "take up arms against the government".
Jefferson said there is liberty when the government fears the people. And for good reason; governments killed 290 million people in the 20th century. We cannot allow governments to even keep track of who owns which weapons; certainly not at the federal level, and although state gun legislation has been put forth as an alternative, the 2nd Amendment should be construed to mean that the federal government must intervene when the states infringe on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
While some leaders say "just give the people a[n up-or-down] vote", I believe that the 2nd Amendment requires the federal government (and the states, as a condition of remaining part of the union) to refrain from infringing on these rights. I myself am pro-choice, but I regard the right of human adults to efficient and effective self-defense as something with which governments have no authority to interact.
The people are free to organize into militias, so that (1) standing government armies which would interfere with the execution of just law cannot do so nor oppress the people, (2) foreign militias - including foreign and international armies, and including possible host-country conspiracy to allow such armies to invade - can be repelled and defeated, and (3) foreign armies can be repelled and defeated, without requiring the maintenance of standing armies, whose very existence risks popular oppression.
People need AR-15s to defend themselves against conquering armies.
Ask yourself: How active could the U.N. become inside the U.S.? How much approval from international agencies do we need to conduct warfare? On top of training foreign militants abroad, is America becoming a training base for foreign militants and armies?
Ask yourself, Why on Earth would something called "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" exist?
I do not own any potential weapon more deadly than a common steak knife (incidentally, "assault weapons" only become "assault" - and also, indeed, "weapons" - when they cease to be tools in defending against violence, and instead become "tools" that perpetuate violence), so I will not be directly affected by any of these potential new laws.
However, I believe that the notion that information-hoarding, admittedly "monopoly-on-legitimate-violence"-supporting governments, should track our capacities to defend ourselves and one another against it, is diametrically opposed to what this country was founded upon.
Additionally, the Interstate Commerce Clause should be construed to require federal intervention to prevent state bans on interstate sales of weapons. Connecticut and other states can ban the manufacture of weaponry if they please, but states may not interfere with purchases and sales.
I do not want you to vote against any new proposed gun control legislation; I would like you to help other senators block votes regarding such legislation. These inalienable rights should not suffer the risks associated with votes nor debates.
"Gun control" for the "safety" of Americans means less freedom from tyranny and violence for women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, political radicals, and non-violent drug offenders.
The federal government has been characterized in legal code as "foreign" to the states. Please help Senator Johnson defend the people of Wisconsin against the attacks and pillaging of the foreign federal army, and from potential joint popular attacks by it and its allies abroad, Statist and terrorist alike.
Here is "Senator Baldwin"'s automated response:
Once
again,
thank
you
for
contacting
my
office.
It
is
important
for
me
to
hear
from
the
people
of
Wisconsin
on
the
issues,
thoughts
and
concerns
that
matter
most
to
you.
If
I
can
be
of
further
assistance,
please
visit
my
website
at
www.baldwin.senate.gov
for
information
on
how
to
contact
my
office.
The Second Amendment says that the security of a free state depends upon the right of "the people" and "well-organized militia" - two overlapping concepts - to bear arms; and "bear arms" means "take up arms against the government".
Jefferson said there is liberty when the government fears the people. And for good reason; governments killed 290 million people in the 20th century. We cannot allow governments to even keep track of who owns which weapons; certainly not at the federal level, and although state gun legislation has been put forth as an alternative, the 2nd Amendment should be construed to mean that the federal government must intervene when the states infringe on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
While some leaders say "just give the people a[n up-or-down] vote", I believe that the 2nd Amendment requires the federal government (and the states, as a condition of remaining part of the union) to refrain from infringing on these rights. I myself am pro-choice, but I regard the right of human adults to efficient and effective self-defense as something with which governments have no authority to interact.
The people are free to organize into militias, so that (1) standing government armies which would interfere with the execution of just law cannot do so nor oppress the people, (2) foreign militias - including foreign and international armies, and including possible host-country conspiracy to allow such armies to invade - can be repelled and defeated, and (3) foreign armies can be repelled and defeated, without requiring the maintenance of standing armies, whose very existence risks popular oppression.
People need AR-15s to defend themselves against conquering armies.
Ask yourself: How active could the U.N. become inside the U.S.? How much approval from international agencies do we need to conduct warfare? On top of training foreign militants abroad, is America becoming a training base for foreign militants and armies?
Ask yourself, Why on Earth would something called "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" exist?
I do not own any potential weapon more deadly than a common steak knife (incidentally, "assault weapons" only become "assault" - and also, indeed, "weapons" - when they cease to be tools in defending against violence, and instead become "tools" that perpetuate violence), so I will not be directly affected by any of these potential new laws.
However, I believe that the notion that information-hoarding, admittedly "monopoly-on-legitimate-violence"-supporting governments, should track our capacities to defend ourselves and one another against it, is diametrically opposed to what this country was founded upon.
Additionally, the Interstate Commerce Clause should be construed to require federal intervention to prevent state bans on interstate sales of weapons. Connecticut and other states can ban the manufacture of weaponry if they please, but states may not interfere with purchases and sales.
I do not want you to vote against any new proposed gun control legislation; I would like you to help other senators block votes regarding such legislation. These inalienable rights should not suffer the risks associated with votes nor debates.
"Gun control" for the "safety" of Americans means less freedom from tyranny and violence for women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, political radicals, and non-violent drug offenders.
The federal government has been characterized in legal code as "foreign" to the states. Please help Senator Johnson defend the people of Wisconsin against the attacks and pillaging of the foreign federal army, and from potential joint popular attacks by it and its allies abroad, Statist and terrorist alike.
Here is "Senator Baldwin"'s automated response:
Thank
you
for
contacting
me
about
federal
gun
policy.
I
respect
and
value
your
thoughts
as
Congress
debates
ways
to
protect
our
families
and
communities
while
upholding
our
Second
Amendment
rights.
Recent
mass
shootings,
from
Newtown,
Connecticut
to
Tucson,
Arizona
and
Oak
Creek,
Wisconsin
have
heightened
our
focus
on
strategies
to
reduce
gun
violence
and
save
lives.
Clearly,
we
must
do
more
to
keep
our
children
and
communities
safe.
I
heard
from
thousands
of
Wisconsinites,
including
sportsmen
and
women,
law
enforcement
officers,
veterans,
gun
violence
victims,
and
school
and
community
leaders
on
this
issue,
and
I
appreciate
you
adding
your
voice
to
the
debate.
I
am
a
gun
owner
and
firmly
believe
in
the
Second
Amendment
and
the
right
of
law-abiding
Americans
to
keep
and
bear
arms. I
also
believe
that,
as
the
Supreme
Court
has
ruled,
this
right
can
be
reconciled
with
reasonable,
common
sense
safety
measures.
The
Senate
recently
debated
gun
safety
legislation,
the
Safe
Communities,
Safe
Schools
Act
(S.
649).
I
believe
the
bill
represents
a
commonsense
approach
to
reducing
gun
violence
and
addressing
holes
in
our
mental
health
system.
Federal
law
has
required
background
checks
for
certain
gun
purchases
for
20
years.
But
such
checks
are
not
required
for
purchases
over
the
internet
or
at
gun
shows. I
voted
to
close
loopholes
in
our
current
background
check
system,
while
explicitly
prohibiting
the
federal
government
from
creating
a
national
gun
registry
and
making
misuse
of
records
a
felony
crime.
I
also
voted
in
favor
of
an
amendment
which
would
give
law
enforcement
additional
tools
to
crack
down
on
gun
trafficking.
In
addition,
I
voted
in
support
of
a
ban
on
future
sales
of
military
assault
weapons
and
high
capacity
magazine
clips.
The
provision
I
supported
explicitly
excluded
from
the
ban
hunting
and
sporting
rifles
and
shotguns
by
make
and
model.
Weapons
made
for
war
and
intended
for
mass
killings
do
not
belong
on
the
streets
of
our
neighborhoods.
On
April
17,
efforts
to
advance
this
legislation
were
blocked
in
the
Senate.
Should
there
be
an
agreement
that
would
allow
the
bill
to
pass,
it
will
be
brought
back
to
the
Senate
floor
for
a
vote.
I
was
extremely
disappointed
with
this
setback,
and
do
not
believe
this
is
an
end
to
efforts
to
reduce
gun
violence
in
our
nation.
Please
be
assured
I
will
continue
to
listen
to
your
feedback
as
we
work
to
find
consensus
on
legislation
that
protects
our
families
and
respects
our
Second
Amendment
rights.
Sincerely,
Tammy Baldwin
United States Senator
Tammy Baldwin
United States Senator
For
more entries on gun control, the Second Amendment, and arrest, please
visit:
For
more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment