Roy G. Callahan, USN, Ret.

1529 NW 143rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606 Tel: (352) 332-9144 Fax: (352) 332-9144 Call6603@Bellsouth.net

Thursday, February 07, 2013 Senator Ted Cruz B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senators Cruz and Rubio: On February 12, 2013, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights is going to take up the subject of Proposals to Reduce Gun violence, Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment. The cast of characters include Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Dick Durban, Senator Al Franken, and Senator Richard Blumenthal (A known liar (military service) that the people of Connecticut stupidly elected to the Unites States Senate) Senator Marco Rubio 317 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510

The title of this inquiry, Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence, Protecting Our Communities while Respecting the Second Amendment is a joke. Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Durban and Franken are known socialist gun grabbers. They know the survival of socialism depends on disarming individuals thus rending them unable to defend themselves. In this instance, their other objective is to punish the majority for the actions of a few miscreants thus diminishing and hazarding the welfare of the majority to achieve a political goal. These are the people who argue that guns that look like assault weapons must be banned. They rightfully lament the deaths of those who lost their lives at Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, but have no problem with the 40 million and counting children who have lost their lives since Roe v. Wade. They want to have it both ways. These Senators are political opportunists whose ideology bears no relationship to the Constitutional Oath they swore to when they entered office. They prey on emotion while arrogantly believing they are the people to fix what they screwed up to begin with. An example of using emotion to override common sense and achieve a political goal is Captain Kellys statements regarding Sandy Hook. I am a retired Navy Hospital Corpsman, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam veteran who spent most of his career with the Marine Corps. I know what war looks like and what it does through firsthand experience. My heart goes out to the victims of Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and former Congresswoman Gifford and was taken aback when I heard Captain Kelly say, Having served in the military, he knows the value of assault weapons when used in mass shootings, more people die.

Page 1 of 4

Captain Kelly was a Navy pilot. He was also an astronaut whose combat experience was primarily support achieved by flying combat support missions from aircraft carriers. Since he has never been shot down, served with a line company, or Special Forces units in combat I doubt that he knows much about what assault weapons do. He knows what guns do because his wife was shot by a gun. However, there is nothing in his record I could find that shows he has never had to defend himself, his shipmates, or his family. Had he had similar experience like the woman who shot an intruder in the face and the neck five times without killing him Im sure his views would be different. Therefore his testimony, while no doubt heart felt, was political theater. He allowed the political class to use his wifes tragedy, and his position to achieve a political end based on emotion, not fact. Thats reprehensible. The nature of this hearing and the character of its members is also an issue. Senator Blumenthals character is questionable. His lies regarding his military service speaks for itself. The only way to get around this issue is to hope people forget and allow him to redefine the word character. Using the traditional definition Senator Blumenthal is a liar and therefore untrustworthy. However, if one redefines character using the humanist-progressive and secular definition then Senator Blumenthal as a member of this committee, is a member in good standing. In order to accept this definition one has to adopt a new moral code based on moral relativism and the humanist definition of enlightened reason that says there is no right or wrong and no good or bad. I refuse to accept this new definition. The shootings we see today did not exist 30 years ago. A contributing factor is the ban on religion accompanied by the loss of moral and ethical standards. Todays public school system indoctrinates and teaches a new hedonistic faith that is by and for this world alone. The effects of humanist-progressive and secularism and the imposition of this new moral code based on moral relativism and the humanist definition of enlightened reason is transforming American society. The new moral code teaches there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. The pleasure principle is preeminent making Thou shalt not kill old fashioned. Combined with unmitigated abortion, divorce and nationalization of the family the violence seen today is not surprising. It defines cause and effect. I marvel at the fact that the Catholic Church provides the sacraments to politicians like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and others. The effects of this new moral code are seen in the problems the Catholic Church is experiencing with some of its priests. The effects of secularism, humanism, and moral relativism imposed by the state are evident. The power of the state is also evident. The premise that universal background checks will solve the problem is a foot in the door for registration and ultimately confiscation. The call for universal background checks is an effort by slick politicians to compile a national data base of gun owners which is a sure way to impose gun control and future confiscation. Similarly the mental health angle is subjective, not conclusive science. Implementing this agenda opens the door for abuse. It can and will be used as a vehicle to classify adversaries as haters, or mentally ill. Those who want to play this game want to replicate the Soviet Unions Serbsky Institute Stalin used to shut down political dissidents like Natan Sharansky by declaring them insane. Americans must reject this flawed science. I support teachers carrying firearms in the classroom to protect themselves and their wards. Teachers have a God given right to self-defense if they want to exercise it. Politicians like President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Senators Boxer and Feinstein et al have to this point refused to allow people to defend themselves yet these are the same people who have all the protection they need. Their refusal to acknowledge that an armed society is a polite society is part of the problem, not the solution. The high murder and crime rate in Chicago and Washington D.C., the two biggest cities with the strictest gun control laws, is the result. Americans should reject this committee because Congress has abrogated its responsibility to the people who elect them by allowing an out of control Executive to have his way, all of which is unconstitutional. The only thing standing

Page 2 of 4

in the way of total tyranny is the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Armed Americans also stand in the way of the New World Order, UN tyranny and many other threats to American sovereignty. The Second Amendment says, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Constitution that is this specific. What follows are the reasons why. In 1787-88 George Mason and James Madison explained the reason why Americans, whose Constitution is distinct from any other in the world, have the 2nd Amendment and the God given right to bear arms. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788. Mr. Mason defined the meaning of the militia saying Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation. I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 Noah Webster explained the threat of an overpowering central government. Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787 Richard Henry Lee, who wrote the resolution declaring independence clarified what the gun issue is all about today when he said, [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788. Patrick Henry was the most passionate champion of the citizens right to bear arms.

Page 3 of 4

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788 Oh, sir! We should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788 Daniel Webster said, The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. My childrens and grandchildrens inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and self-defense is at stake. Mr. LaPierres assessment that President Obama and his fellow travelers are elitist hypocrites is spot on. Those who want to limit the individual right to protect themselves against societys predators and tyrannical government hope the majority of Americans do not notice that they have armed school guards to protect themselves and their children. Obama's children have Secret Service protection because officials at their school have said its own guards do not carry guns. All Americans, my progeny included, deserve the same right to protect themselves individually and collectively. Yours in the Bill of Rights,

Roy Callahan Copy to: Senator Rubio, Representative Yoho, Florida House, and Senate, State Representative Perry, State Senator Bradley et al.

Page 4 of 4