The Honorable Barak Obama
President United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
My name is Charles M. Heiss and I am the Sheriff of Johnson County, Missouri. I have held this office since January 1, 1997. I am writing to you to express my concern with the tone of your administration with respect to the Second Amendment Rights of American citizens.
It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation.
Throughout our nation�s history the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights has served as the very foundation of our free society. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has long guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bare arms and is central to our ability to live in a free society. Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.
Just as the Fourth Amendment to the constitution guarantees our citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, the Second Amendment guarantees each of us the right to keep and bare arms to protect ourselves from anyone who would seek to cause us harm. This includes the federal Government.
World history has shown us that when a society does not possess the ability to defend itself it becomes ripe for victimization by criminals, and ripe for government oppression.
One need not look too far in today�s world to see glaring examples of defenseless people being brutalized by rogue regimes and dictators. Syria, North Korea, and Mali are just a few examples of this type of oppression. Mexico is a stark reminder of a society overrun with criminal element in the form of Drug Cartels.
As the duly elected Sheriff of Johnson County, Missouri, it is my sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States of America, and the State of Missouri against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This means I not only have the duty to protect my constituents from incidents of crime, but I also have a duty and responsibility to protect and preserve the individual rights and liberties afforded and guaranteed to every citizen by our constitutions.
This, Mr. President is a duty I fully understand, appreciate, and will carry out with great vigor and conviction. I will most certainly urge my fellow Sheriffs in the State of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bare arms.
I will use all means legal to meet this solemn and sacred responsibility.
Respectfully,
Charles M. Heiss
Sheriff Johnson County, Missouri.
Increase the number and power of the guns in private hands
The second amendment is not about hunting, it is not even about
self protection agains some individual. It is meant--crudely stated--
as collective protection against a government run wild. . . . and that
is surely what we now have. Unfortunately we are massively outgunned.
What we now need is significantly increased fire power in the private
sector. Right now we have one saving grace: Right now I don't believe
that our military would blindly follow an order against the people . . . and
I think that noblama knows that.
But we would still be wise to improve our defensive posture. . . in my
humble opinion, of course
__________________ Imagined knowledge kills learning . . . The cure for boredom is curiosity...there is no cure for curiosity..
I will use all means legal to meet this solemn and sacred responsibility.
The only thing the honorable sheriff needs to do is state that the constitution cannot be modified by simply passing any laws or legislation that will limit or restrict constitutional amendments as that is illegal.
And he is not required nor should he obey an illegal order. However anyone that would propose or pass such a law is considered as committing treason against the country and it is the sheriff�s right to go slap their fingers.
If he takes the second amendment so literally, then he should know it says that each state may exercise that right by having it's owned armed militia, ie state National Guard. It's twisting words around into loopty loops to try and interpret it to mean that any yahoo can buy an AK-47 even if he is a day care worker and keeps it in his locker. But then the pro-assault weapon people do have loopty loop logic.
There are three type of militia; the military�s standing army, the state militia (National Guard), and the unorganized militia (that�s you the average citizen, and if you are at least 16 years old, of sound mind and body you are automatically a member).
According to the founding fathers it is this unorganized militia that is the most important. This is because it is you and only you who has the ultimate responsibility to protect your family and your community. To that end the 2nd amendment states that you have the right to keep and bare arms. According to the founders the unorganized militia, as in you the average citizen, has the right and the duty to be armed and on par with the regular military. So yes that means AR47�s and any other weapons that you can �carry in your bare arms� anything that you feel comfortable with. Or nothing at all.
Last weeks Letter-to-editor
I couldn�t help but laugh at the political cartoon in Saturday�s editorial page. The one depicting a typical macho hunter with his rifle and NRA patches standing next to his trophy heads of his congressmen. Obviously the intent of the writer was to say that this type of mentality is barbaric and unthinkable.
However it is also quite apparent that that he has no knowledge of our history because if he did he would have known that this was exactly what the countries founders had intended.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
It was further stated that it was not only a right but the duty of the citizen to be armed and to be armed equal to the military. It was these individually armed citizens coming together that formed the militias and it was they who were ultimately in charge of defending our freedom not the government.
To those who would willingly give up their rights with the expectation that government will protect them, well they could be in for a rude surprise.
As Thomas Jefferson also said "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have"
This push to ban guns will not make us safer. Wherever they have been banned crime has gone up. Did prohibition get rid of alcohol? Have our drug laws cured the drug problem? Thus it is absurd to think more guns laws will somehow make us safer when all evidence is against it.
Jefferson couldn't possibly have been referring to AK-47s since they did not exist then. If personally owned weaponry is for the purpose of countering government tyranny, than individuals should have bazookas, tanks, apache helicopters,heat-seeking missiles, and nuclear warheads, but I don't think so.
The truth is children are being killed over and over again by lax gun laws and as Einstein said, "Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results." I don't think I will win anyone over. Gun supporters do so with emotion and not intellect, and it is impossible to change emotion with intellect. All the statistics show that if you own a gun, it is 4 times more likely to kill the owner than an intruder. SO there.
Gun supporters do so with emotion and not intellect, and it is impossible to change emotion with intellect. All the statistics show that if you own a gun, it is 4 times more likely to kill the owner than an intruder. SO there.
I'm a gun supporter for the average law abiding American, and I'm quite intelligent. Falling for the "statistics" that a gun is more likely to kill the owner than the intruder shows lack of free-thinking and intelligence, IMO.
If you think that the cops are going to get to your home in time to save your life, or the lives of your family members, when an intruder breaks in and threatens rape and murder, you're living in a fantasy world....really.
Regardless of the reasons for gun ownership, Americans have the right to own whatever type of gun they choose, for use in self-defense, hunting, fun/target practice, or collecting, and they should retain that right. These citizens are not involved in any mass murders, etc.
It's unfortunate when anyone is targeted by some of these "sick" people, who are usually under the influence of legal prescription mood-altering drugs.
Many other gun crimes are committed by criminals against each other...that doesn't always make the news headlines. The news media's use of these unfortunate shootings to promote gun control, by your reply, is very successful in using emotion/fear over intelligence to manipulate/convince/sway many folks like you.
No Jefferson did not know about AK47�s but he did know about assault weapons and the latest, greatest most deadly one of his day was the muzzle loading rifle and it was this same deadly military weapon that he wanted to also see in the hands of the people.
Because of Sandy Hook we are seeing a big push for more gun laws. But as has been already pointed out gun laws don�t work and are actually counterproductive. Not long ago when Australia banned all gun ownership did it did it reduce gun violence? Ah no, actually their gun violence and crime in general went up. Older people became easy targets for criminals and attacks on them went up, in one area the murder rate by guns went up 300%. When Britain also banned all guns they had the same results! Is that the way we want government to take care of us?
New York, Washington DC, Chicago have some of the most stringent gun laws and yet they have the highest deaths due to gun violence how can this be? Right here in good old Chicago apparently they just broke another record, and our �children� are dying in record numbers. But just who are these �children�? They won�t possibly be the teenage gang bangers would it? They certainly wouldn�t disobey Chicago�s gun laws, would they? If we really want to get rid of this violence maybe we should try banning these gangs. While we are at it we need to get the people that are behind what the MSM likes to tell us are �crazy lone gunmen�. We need to take off the blinders and rose colored glasses and see that these �shooting incidents� are nothing but blatant in-your-face false flag attacks. The people behind these attacks have their own agenda and goals, and helping to promote humanity is not one of them.
Two days after the recent school shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and the people in the theater and they started running and screaming. It�s was somewhat similar to the Colorado shooting.
But how many have heard of this? Surely the anti-gun crowd would want us all to know about this. Why wasn�t it a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
Could it possibility have something to do with the fact that there was an off duty county deputy at the theater and SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone?
There are many stories like this but since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, so naturally the media is treated it like it never happened.
So OK how about a little history of just how well gun control laws have worked in the past. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million apposers who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Every genocide in history has been preceded by civilian disarmament.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some historical statistics:
99.9% of all guns in the United States have not been used in violent crimes.
99.8% of these guns have not been used in crimes at all.
Guns are used 4 times as often in self defense as in crime, and 98% of the time the gun is not even fired.
Only 1% of the time when a gun is used in self defense has a criminal taken the gun from a defender.
Only 4% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally.
After guns were banned in the UK, the armed robbery rate spiked to over 40% there, and 44% in Australia.
In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law that required heads of households to own a gun. From 1982 through 2012 there were only 4 murders in Kennesaw. Three of those murders happened in a "gun free school zone" where guns were forbidden.
__________________
. If personally owned weaponry is for the purpose of countering government tyranny, than individuals should have bazookas, tanks, apache helicopters,heat-seeking missiles, and nuclear warheads, but I don't think so.
The truth is children are being killed over and over again by lax gun laws and as Einstein said, "Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results." I don't think I will win anyone over. Gun supporters do so with emotion and not intellect, and it is impossible to change emotion with intellect. All the statistics show that if you own a gun, it is 4 times more likely to kill the owner than an intruder. SO there.
You should study Ho Chi Minn. Brought the US to it's knees using nothing but peasants, SKS's and Ak's. Soon the Afganies will be free of US intervention, just as they are Soviet intervention.
Lax gun laws don't kill children. 450 school aged children died in Chicago during 2012, and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
When we prosecute a gun and let the killer walk free, I'll then believe that the gun perpetrated the crime.
Your stats look like they came straight from Sarah Brady. Mind posting a link? If they were true, more cops would be shooting themselves and their brethren than street people, wouldn't they? We wouldn't have to worry about wars and invading armies, because they would kill themselves off, right?
__________________ I'd rather meander for the prevention than race for the cure.
Here is an interesting little video. The maker of it has been trying to buy a 60 second radio spot to promote his message. However strangely the MSM in WashingtonDC are reluctant to sell him the time.
Letter To Obama..
Linear Mode
