Fearmongering, Not Facts

To the Editor:

Like most anti gun people who rail like ghouls at each mass shooting that benefits their long held political agendas, Sherri Fitch (8/8) is long on tropes and short on facts.

First of all, Sherri, there is no easy access to “automatic assault rifles.”

Automatic weapons are quite heavily regulated. What Sherri seems to be referring to are semiautomatic rifles classified by anti-gun politicians as “assault WEAPONS”: a political term contrived to frighten and confuse the general public as to what is a machine gun and what is not.

Sherri seems to be living proof that it worked.

Here are the facts: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Sherri then moves on to attempt to deny that the Second Amendment means what it says, by offering, in reference to so-called “assault weapons”, what I call the “Musket Trope”:

“There were no such weapons at the time of the crafting of the Constitution. “

Fortunately, this argument is quite easily shot down, if you’ll pardon the expression.

Rather than asking Sherri if she wrote her letter on parchment with a quill dipped in ink, then rushed it by pony express to the newspaper’s office in time for it to be hand set with movable type, I’ll offer this from the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia vs Heller:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

I have spent years defending my rights, and yours, from the likes of Bernie Sanders, Dianne Feinstein, Philip Baruth, and Sherri Fitch. I do not propose to stop now.

Sherri opines that it is time to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

I submit that if Sherri thinks millions of American gun owners are going to line up with a “duh-yup, hurr-durr” and surrender or register their property at the behest of the government, she may well be smoking Pablo Escobar’s product from a glass pipe. Ask the New York State Police how that SAFE Act is working out for them.

In conclusion, I know the records of elected officials on gun control.

I pledge, yet again, that I will not only vote against, but actively work against, any politician proposing additional gun control, ESPECIALLY on the local level.

Again, Sherri, law abiding gun owners and those who understand liberty and the Constitution, which you clearly do not, are not going to roll over and kowtow to your hand wringing and demands for infringement of their rights.

We will not be punished or restricted based on the actions of criminals and madmen.

#WeWillNotComply - and there is nothing Sherri Fitch, or anyone else, will do about it.

In liberty -

Eddie Garcia

Co-director, Vermont Citizens Defense League

St. Johnsbury


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.