Open letter to senator Dianne Feinstein: The right to keep and bear arms

Photo of author
Written By Sergei Hoff

Senator Feinstein:

My open letter is in response to your indignant comments to Colin Powell, concerning the United Nations and Mr. Ashcroft’s Second Amendment interpretation. Specifically, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Why is it, that within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the “people” are correctly interpreted as referring to the rights of “individuals”, and yet, only within the Second Amendment, is the word “people”, allegedly intended by our Founding Fathers to denote a collective or state right? If it is your position that the Second Amendment is addressing only a collective or state right, then, for the purposes of clarification and uniformity, we should immediate replace the words “people” and “persons” with the word “state”, in all aforementioned Amendments.

Upon performing this minor alteration, we can all feel certain that our 50 states will be comforted in knowing that they now have a right to freely express their religion beliefs. And, perhaps, our state governments can now be secure in the knowledge that they are free to speak and peaceably assemble. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will certainly bring a sense of well-being to our states. Each state can rejoice in the understanding that they cannot be arrested without a warrant, to be issued only upon probable cause. That the life, limb and property of each state cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. And, the state shall no longer be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against itself. Each state can now eagerly anticipate the utterance of a police “Miranda” warning, prior to its arrest and prosecution. Frankly, I think that it would be far easier to abolish the Ninth Amendment altogether, rather than explain why we believed it necessary to change its meaning from “Reserved rights to the people” to “Reserved rights to the state”. A few awakened individuals might feel compelled to question this one. Lastly, we must now proceed to erode the Tenth Amendment. The distortion of this Amendment is also quite simple. Henceforth, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and back to the states again, where such powers shall remain”. Not to worry, Senator Feinstein, as the Tenth Amendment will become quite confusing as a result of this proposed change, and most citizens haven’t a clue as to what our Bill of Rights represent, I do not believe that many challenges will arise to cause you consternation.

In this light, I should imagine that anyone exhibiting even a trace of commonsense could not help but see the preposterousness of such semantic manipulations. But, in reality, this is precisely what politicians, equal in cunning to yourself, and disingenuous judiciaries have contrived for the Second Amendment, our principal defender of the Bill of Rights.

In a most illustrative example of governmental corruption and hypocrisy, which, to my knowledge, has never been challenged in a court of law, let us now examine the following scenario that everyone can easily comprehend. If a state or local government were to violate the civil rights of any individual (clearly defined and enumerated within the Bill of Rights), the federal government and courts would immediately admonish that offending state or city. Excluding, of course, the civil and unalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional protection to be singled out for, state and local recognition or lack thereof, state interpretation, and unconstitutional state infringements. Whereas, the states are seldom permitted to infringe upon the civil rights contained within the remaining nine Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government and courts to assault the principles of the Second Amendment. These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage, yet, willfully and readily employed in every state within this nation.

Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism, or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon “Constitutional Law” for such judgments. Not any individual (yourself included) or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which “Article or Amendment” is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety.

The essence and intent of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, have most definitely ricocheted off your intellect. In presenting a conclusion of such vital principles, the void of honest scrutiny and practice should be of some concern to many. On the other hand, your accomplishments as an illusionist have not all been in vain or gone unnoticed. And, I must admit, that your skills as a puppeteer are masterful and unsurpassed. Your successful career of swaying the unwitting masses, can further be attributed to an artful projection of mindless mob hysteria (i.e. Million Mom March). However, and sadly, I can only assume that you perceive man’s eternal search for truth, as a challenge to be avoided at all costs. I suspect, that at this stage of your political career, many of your more enlightened constituents must be quite dispirited by their lack of ethical and effective representation. With talents such as yours, comes a few small sacrifices. Unfortunately, for your constituents.

For the continuance of U. S. Sovereignty and welfare of the citizenry, I shall suggest that women of your temperament should remain in the home, where damages resulting from a lack of conscience and integrity, can easily be confined to a single family dwelling. As it now stands, nationally, your ambitious and misguided political efforts are placing our individual liberties and lives in peril, rendering you unfit for any position of authority. Your several terms in office have revealed unimpeachable evidence that you are an emotionally immature and shallow person, an icon of senatorial arrogance. Your craftiness has promoted nothing less harmful than anger, chaos and a divided nation. The ambivalence that you have displayed towards our individual liberties, including the right of self-defense, is unforgivable. No, it is intolerable!

I am not so foolishly optimistic to believe that any individual will ever dissuade you from your follies. Although, the majority of voters have been overcome by a sense of hopelessness, I can at least be content by collaborating with those several thousands who are committed to exposing your subversive activities, through open letters such as this. Madam, you deserve no more comfort provided by the people. A vote of confidence must now be encouraged and organized by your California constituents, with the intent of dislodging your disloyal derriere from the coveted senatorial chair.

As a matter of form I bid you good day,

Sergei Borglum Hoff

Leave a Comment