Dear Mrs. Feinstein:
Agreeing To Disagree Is Not My Option
By David P. Armentrout, Ph.D.

Recently I wrote to Senator Diane Feinstein, pointing out that: (a) disarmament of the public impairs the ability of the nation to resist assault from both within and without, (b) that her primary duty is to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and (C) that the propagandists who misrepresent facts for political gain present to us the visible face of those enemies. Her reply was, "I know you feel strongly about this, and it appears that we shall continue to be in disagreement on this issue." Her reasons: (a) a Jewish Community Center was attacked, (b) 32,000 citizens die by gunfire annually. I presume that gunfire includes all causes, such as police protection or federal assaults, such as on the Branch Dravidians. Thus, for the sake of 32,000 (?) she puts at risk a nation of 300,000,000. Is there something wrong with this picture? Probably not, Senator Feinstein is an honorable woman.

That Senator Feinstein plans to be forever in disagreement with me, tells me that she does not intend to represent me, but that she plans to force me to accept what she personally believes to be a "higher good." That sounds more like a Benevolent Tyrant. It would be fine if she were Mom and I was 5 years old. However, I am an adult, and I find no benevolence in tyranny. It was in response to tyranny that our Founding Fathers proclaimed it the duty of every citizen to be a militia, and not only "keep and bear arms," but to pro-actively oppose and overthrow tyranny by force of arms. That's how our nation was formed. By that principle, it remains the duty of every citizen to defend this nation by force of arms "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." However, Senator Feinstein prefers to do this without guns, and Senator Feinstein is an honorable woman.

There are two general types of governments, democratic and autocratic. It is useful to look at them.

A democratic government (or a democracy) is characterized by direct personal ownership and control of everything. All decisions are made by the people. The government is allowed to own and control only those very few things which directly affect the society. A democracy may be representative, as is ours. We elect people to carry out our will, and we express that will through voting. Every election is a revolution. Representatives insure that we have exact, truthful, appropriate information so that we may make decisions on the basis of well-informed judgment. A representative is responsible to the people to represent them, regardless of how personally unpleasant this may be. The people individually agree to conform to their own collective will, and have no other responsibility to government, the powers of which are strictly limited. Above all else, personal civil rights take precedence, second in importance is the collective will of the voters, and the wishes of those in power may be totally excluded. Disputes are settled by debate or jury trial.

In an autocracy, the autocrat owns everything, and private ownership and control is allowed only in those cases in which the benefits of the autocrat are served. No decisions are made by the people. An autocracy may be representative, as were the Republics of the Soviet Union, or the People's Republic of China. Representation is generally an internal government function in which experts are polled for opinions and policy is drafted. Such voting does not allow deviation from the Party Line. The autocrat has no responsibility to the people, but the individual people are subject to all decrees of the autocrat, which are generally unlimited. Above else, the whim of the autocrat takes precedence, second in importance is the convenience of the state and its administrators, and personal civil rights may be totally excluded. Disputes are settled by administrative decree or liquidation.

To the extent that our representatives make untrue public statements in order to attain their personal political ends, they support tyranny. Does Senator Feinstein do this? One would assume not, for Senator Feinstein is an honorable woman.

In democracies, the public good is served by minimizing the risk to others of the activities of any individual. On this basis we agree to "reasonable regulation" of individual rights. Thus, it is illegal to drive my car while drunk because I become a public danger. It is inappropriate to have an RPG, grenade, or 120 mm mortar in my apartment because an accident might wipe out my neighbors. I can't shoot deer in my yard because stray bullets are dangerous. I must be careful that my grandchildren do not play with my guns. However, providing that I do not endanger my community, it is my right to possess and use a car or a gun. It is my right to use a gun to protect my family and property, and by historical precedent, it is my duty to use it to actively oppose a national enemy. All this goes with gun ownership. However, beyond reduction of public danger by requiring appropriate behavior, as in the case of my car, has government any right to intrude? Senator Feinstein seems to think it does. Many people feet she tells the truth, guiding us to well-informed decision, and representing the popular will as best she can, for Senator Feinstein is an honorable woman. +

=====
Reprinted with permission from The Firing Line, September 2000
Credit given to The Firing Line, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., and  David P. Armentrout, Ph.D.