 |
 |
The Los Angeles Times did a series on so-called assault weapons that was highly misleading. In response, gun owners across Southern California wrote letters of protest to Big 5, a large retailer who advertised in the Times and sold firearms. Below is my letter. |
|
Mr. Steve Miller, President October 7, 1997 Dear Mr. Miller, I am not a customer of yours. I don't shop at your competition, either. The few times in the last 20 years I purchased something at Big 5, I've been satisfied. So, I assume you are running a successful operation. My concern is whether you will achieve further success by taking away other people's freedoms? Or will you grow and profit by protecting your freedoms and theirs? Today there's a great moral debate going in the US which you've ended up in the middle of. It should be no surprise that you've been pulled into it. History proves that a country must have the consent, cooperation and support of the commercial sector before it can embark on anything. No matter what the system of government, without the products and services that are necessary for the endeavor, the nation cannot pursue the endeavor. In other words, like it or not, Mr. Miller, you're involved. This moral debate isn't about religion, sex, welfare, abortion, Bosnia, the Mideast or campaign financing. It's about something far more important. It's about your fundamental right to exist - and mine - and your family's, mine and everyone else's. You could say that whether you exist or not has a direct influence on your bottom line. Unfortunately, the issue is not looked at that simply. For instance, most German industrialists wholeheartedly supported Hitler; most US industrialists supported Slavery. So, if I said to you that the Holocaust and Slavery could have been averted with one phrase - fourteen words to be exact - would it make a difference to you? This phrase is so powerful that in the notorious Dredd Scott case, in which the US Supreme Court declared unequivocally that Blacks are not human, these fourteen words were referred to as proof of the Court's decision. We're faced with those fourteen words again today. It's possible that you knowingly or unknowingly are supporting the wrong side of the issue. That's why I'm writing you. What's so unique about the US is not just that we have the most dynamic economy to ever touch the face of the earth, not just that we are the center of the technological and industrial world; not that we set the trends for the world's entertainment. It's that we are the only country in the world to actually put those fourteen words in our Constitution. Of course, to make sure Blacks stayed as slaves, the Supreme Court declared them as inhuman - because America was terrified of what would happen had Blacks been allowed to practice those fourteen words. Now the government is on the verge of denying those fourteen words to everyone. I'll tell you what those fourteen words are by describing them in the form of two questions with answers: Question 1: How many Jews with guns walked into Nazi gas chambers? Answer: None. Question 2: How long would Slavery have lasted if Blacks had been able to buy as many guns as they wanted? No answer needed, right? The fourteen words are: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The LA Times has been launching an all-out barrage against them. If you think that the Second Amendment is about guns, please don't let yourself be fooled by the pseudo-scientific nonsense that floats around in today's politically correct atmosphere. The Second Amendment is about good and evil, period. To deny that there will always be evil people in the world is to deny that there will always be moral choices. To deny innocent people the right to self defense is evil, period. Now let me suggest one more word to you: "unarmed." That's it. Nothing else. I'll use that one word to show you why the LA Times assault is as wrong as denying Blacks under Slavery and Jews under Hitler their right to self defense. I want you to do one simple thing with that word. It will take some effort so I'll give you some examples. The simple thing I want you to do is this: the next time you read or hear about a murder victim, a rape victim or an assault victim, I want you to preface it with the word "unarmed" so that murder victims become "unarmed murder victims"; this is especially true in rape. How many times have you read, "An unidentified woman, heavily armed with a semi-automatic weapon was raped by a man wielding a knife." No answer is necessary, right? Then again, you might profit under evil. The Swiss made billions by being Nazi Germany's banker. The US military/industrial complex made billions off of Vietnam. If, on the other hand, you want to make your money with a clean conscience, let's go back about a year and a half. You might remember the case. It made the front page of the Metro section. A man who was crippled had taken his wife to dinner for their 30th anniversary - it might have been 25th, I'm not sure. They were poor; so their anniversary dinner was a trip to Denny's. While the man was sitting in the car, a thug came along and accosted his wife who was standing in front of the restaurant. The crippled man couldn't even get out of the car to help her. He had to watch the thug shoot her dead and steal her purse. Total financial contents of the purse: one dollar. Now, let's imagine that crippled man stuck in the car with an AK-47 sitting on his lap. That's the difference between armed and unarmed. That's why the Second Amendment is about good and evil. New Jersey has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the nation. Do you remember the news story about the New Jersey school teacher who was murdered by a teenager? He abducted her at knife point and made her drive him around the area before he strangled her. While they were driving around she reached into her pocket and - No, she did not pull out a gun - she flipped on her pocket tape recorder and made a recording of the conversation between her and her soon-to-be-killer. What would have happened if she had reached into her pocket and pulled out a 15 shot, semi-automatic handgun that she didn't have a license for? Guns are made to kill. Thank goodness they are. Because without them, the weakest in society are at the mercy of thugs. We could go a step further than "unarmed." We could say "disarmed." In Los Angeles it is almost impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed form of self defense. But for now, let's leave it at the neutral term "unarmed." All I ask of you, Mr. Miller, is to think "unarmed." Think Slavery. Think Holocaust. Then think about the millions of dollars that you spend every year with the LA Times. Think about your family being disarmed by the LA Times' assault on the right to self defense. You can make a difference, just like the industrialists in every nation can make a difference. You can tell the LA Times that you object to their biased, uneven reporting. Tell them you want to hear both sides of the issue. Sincerely, Joe Zychik |
|
 |
 |