Honorable XXXXXXX,



 I am writing you in regards to a certain piece of legislation that was enacted in 1994. It is generally referred to as the “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994”. This ban effects pistols and shotguns, but mainly rifles. And as I am sure you know, is set to expire via a sunset clause in September of 2004. I wish and urge you to vote against any renewal of this legislation. There are at least three reasons I can think of to why this piece of legislation should not be renewed. It has not shown a decrease in violent crime, it affects men and women involved in competitive shooting. There is also one additional reason; this ban targets firearms that are not aesthetically pleasing; it targets guns because they look scary.
           The reason for the addition of the sunset clause according to the democrats was to gather data on the effect of this ban. "Banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country." (National Institute of Justice) It is apparent that the National Institution of Justice has reviewed the statistics and the effect of the ban. The truth is that very few crimes are committed with these so called “assault weapons”. A criminal is not going to spend $1,000 on a weapon when he can get his hands on one that is often home made, cheaply manufactured, or stolen and just as lethal for less than 200 dollars. It simply doesn’t work like they say or expected it to, regardless of what they claim. The facts can be distorted but the truth cannot. For this I urge you not to support the renewal of this legislation.
          The ban has had no palpable effect on crime, but it has had a tremendous and terrible impact on the law-abiding citizens of the United States. Many people engage in competitive shooting programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program that use mainly semi-automatic firearms. They are no longer allowed to have adjustable stocks, or compensators, which redirect the flow of gasses in order to give them more control. In addition to this all magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds are now illegal, making them have to reload during competition frequently and increasing the time it takes for them to complete one round. This is all difficult because things they have become accustomed to and rely on for competition have no become illegal due to a blatantly unconstitutional law. This should not be allowed to continue.
          Last but not least the ban targets features just because they look scary. The authors of this legislation honestly have no comprehension of physics or the mechanics of modern firearms. They feel that just because a firearm looks scary it should be banned. They ignore the fact that a pre-ban weapon is functionally identical and just as lethal as a post-ban weapon. They claim these weapons are designed to kill police officers and can penetrate their bulletproof vests. They do not realize that almost every rifle is capable of penetrating these vests, because they were not designed to stop rifle rounds. Even a World War 1 bolt-action rifle will penetrate them, in addition to all hunting rifles. They feel that the purpose of a collapsible stock is to make it easier to conceal. This as well is false, the purpose of a collapsible stock is to adapt to the size of the shooter and the position they are in (IE: standing, kneeling, prone). They believe that a rifle having a bayonet attachment is somehow more deadly than one without, are they concerned about drive by bayonettings? Sounds sort of silly to me. They also claim that these weapons have pistol grips to enable people to spray fire them from the hip. If this were honestly true why would they be the guns of choice for competitive shooters, and police officers? In turn they have also convinced the public that these weapons are fully automatic. I saw a segment on CNN recently that showed a man firing a pre-ban semi-automatic weapon that miraculously fired in fully automatic annihilating a cinder block and piercing a bullet proof vest, the camera then switched to a semi-automatic and fired 2 or 3 shots that did not have any effect on the cinder block or vest. From this it becomes clear that these people obviously have no problems with lying as long as it furthers their political careers.  Any intelligent person would know that a semi-automatic weapon is capable of firing only one shot per trigger pull and that making the gun look scarier does not change its performance or lethality, and that the media is deliberately misleading them. Fully automatic weapons became strictly regulated over 65 years ago. The truth of the matter is these people do not want people to own something just because they are scared by the appearance of an inanimate object. For this I beg that you to oppose the renewal of this “feel-good” legislation.
  The fact this ban has had no effect on violent crime, it hinders the performance of men and women involved in competitive shooting, and attacks weapons based solely on their appearance is more than enough justification for its expiration. I know that you are an intelligent person who will look at the facts before arriving at a decision. I just pray that it is the right decision. I will cast my vote on a candidate who has integrity, a trait you have displayed so far. Please do not alienate us lawful gun owners.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX

Quoted:
CK,

Hug & kisses are typed; XOXOXOOXOXOXOXOXO

not: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

got it?