Capitol Shooting - Mother Was Depressed. Obviously We Need Vehicle Control Laws....

Regarding the recent capitol shooting: the driver was known to Connecticut police, it appears that she was suffering from depression and had been hospitalized for it at one point, and she rammed the barrier at the White House because she believed that Pres. Obama was stalking her (actually, she wasn't far from wrong on that count!).

Obviously, her right to own a vehicle should have been taken away long ago. 

We need to provide comprehensive, universal background checks as a condition to owning a vehicle, and we need to limit the capacity of gas tanks of all vehicles to not more than 10 gallons to insure that someone can't try something like this again. We need to immediately ban all high capacity gas tanks (11 gallons or larger), and register all vehicles in a federal database that can take a high capacity gas tank. Sen. Pelosi should waste more tax payer dollars looking at photos of vehicles so that she can come up with a list of scary-looking assault vehicles that should be banned from ownership unless you buy a tax stamp first; this list will grandfather in historic assault vehicles. It is imperative that the President pass an executive order banning the reimportation of any US-made historic assault vehicle that may have been provided to another country 60 years ago during the course of a war.

Further, the right of anyone associated with such a person to own a vehicle, especially one with a high capacity gas tank or, heaven forbid, an assault vehicle, should be curtailed as well to insure that the disturbed person can't illegally acquire the vehicle by running the owner over with their own vehicle. In addition, vehicle free zones should be established to prevent such people from getting too close to the White House, congress, and schools, and teachers and other school staff should be forbidden to possess a vehicle in a school zone. Malls, theaters, hospitals and other commercial entities should have the right to post themselves as vehicle free zones. The simple act of posting a vehicle free zone sign will be sufficient to deter someone who is potentially dangerous from using their vehicle to commit a crime, such as ramming a 7-11 for the purpose of dragging out the ATM.

If we take these measures, we can insure that something like this never happens again, because everyone knows that disturbed people, or even hard core bad guys, would never try to circumvent this system by illegally acquiring a vehicle or modifying a legal vehicle by adding a high capacity gas tank and other assault vehicle features.

Sound absurd? I can think of at least one other area in which these same conditions are considered to be "common sense," even though that area accounts for a fraction of the deaths that occur in the US as compared to automobile ownership.

Pres. Obama: Law Enforcement OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES Gun Control Legislation...

The following letter was faxed to Pres. Obama and my legislators from Michigan:

June 11, 2013

President Barak H. Obama
The White House

Mr. President,

Some time back, you stood in front of the cameras with a few police chiefs and told us that law enforcement overwhelmingly backs gun control.  A recent poll of more than 15,000 law enforcement officers, over 70% of which were officers, not elected police chiefs, however, tells a far different story.

Among the results:

* 95% of respondents said that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

* 90% oppose banning certain semi-automatic firearms.

* 85% said that proposed federal gun control legislation would have no effect on reducing crime, or would even INCREASE crime.

* NEARLY 90% SAID THAT THE PRESENCE OF LEGALLY-ARMED CITIZENS AT OUR RECENT MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS WOULD HAVE EITHER REDUCED OR COMPLETELY PREVENTED CASUALTIES.  This result, by the way, mirrors a statement issued last year by the border patrol officer's union:

"06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. 

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…"

* More than 80% favor arming school employees.

The overall conclusion of the survey?  

"Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard."

The full results of the poll can be found here:  Gun Control Survey-11 key findings on officers' thoughts

So contrary to your public statement, Mr. President, law enforcement does not back your proposals.  And the latest polls reveal that the majority of Americans don't, either.  In fact, in terms of national priorities, only 4% list gun control as a top priority.

It is time to cease your attacks on our Second Amendment rights.  The role of government in this and other issues was clearly delineated in the 1875 Supreme Court Case, United States v. Cruikshank:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them, and to do naught to deprive him of their full enjoyment. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT [I]THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Respectfully submitted,