Open letter to Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Dear Honorable Sen. Feinstein:
The problem with grabbing a dog by its ears is not in the act itself — it's in realizing the mistake and attempting to let go.
America is a country that is ideologically divided right down the middle. This split can be observed anywhere one looks — a schizophrenic judicial system, polarized legislatures, a coarsening electorate; a divide that is particularly glaring when one looks at a geographic map of the popular vote from recent elections.
You have proposed to introduce incendiary Firearms Legislation at what arguably is one of the tensest social moments in the history of America. For rural Americans, any restriction beyond current firearms law will require us to choose between an inherent, ingrained right to defend our families or disobedience to an expansionist Federal mindset. For millions of responsible, voting, productive, tax-paying Americans there is, if your Legislation proceeds, no choice to make.
Ms. Feinstein, following a force-feed of the Affordable Care Act, several hundred invasive Executive Orders, rogue environmental rules and reams of new federal regulation, America is in absolutely no mood for trite, inside-the-beltway efforts to further erode our rights and privileges. One glance at rising background checks, mounting munition sales, escalating gun prices and explosive (a mediocre Association at best, but all we have) growth in NRA membership tells the story of what people really believe. It simply seems as though our public servants, like Messers Bloomberg, Cuomo, Vice President Biden and yourself, are not listening.
Perhaps we should put this in perspective. On one side we have a government that takes private property for want of a bug; an entity who cannot balance its checkbook, effectively regulate toilets, light-bulbs or even school-lunch menus — and you propose for us to trust you with regulation of the very means to defend ourselves from deranged killers or even government tyranny?
Respectfully, Sen. Feinstein, the response is a unified, resolved and resounding "no."
As a pistol-toting, career politician who continues (by Californians) to secure re-election, I believe you understand the importance of reading the table; e.g., gauging the reaction of the electorate to a particular Bill, idea or, in this case, notion. May I suggest this proposed legislation not only will not be effective, it is going to inflame the divisive landscape that already exists — and I hope you to be concerned about that.
In the final analyses gun control is not about curbing social horrors, as any thoughtful review demonstrates firearm regulation merely serves to transition citizens to subjects. In the end game, it is quite possible Americans will take this effort personally and stop listening to federal mandates altogether — and then where would we be? I guess history could repeat itself.
Missed opportunity for governing body
I just read your editorial regarding minorities and women not stepping up to be represented on commissions, etc. I recall reading the paper earlier and had noted that Jonathan Galia, a racial minority, had put his name in for appointment to the Commission. He was not chosen. I think he would have been a better choice and would certainly have been a better representative of Garden City's minority majority. The other commission members chose not to appoint him. Perhaps we should ask, "Why?"
I think women and minorities tend not to "step up" because they are not chosen in the end, and the cycle of exclusion is perpetuated. The commission clearly had the opportunity to add an ethnic minority perspective to governmental leadership. It failed in this matter. I failed in not "lobbying" Commission members to appoint Mr. Galia. Perhaps we all can do a better job in advocating and recruiting women and minorities to positions of leadership locally, statewide and nationally.
Thank you for putting your thoughts forward.