[Cover Letter]

To: The National Rifle Association

Subject: Six Questions Out of Parkland
Cc: All affiliated, cohort, like-minded Groups and Individuals

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is a set of questions directed to [note, not "at"] the organization and membership of the National Rifle Association, and all
affiliated, cohort, like-minded groups and individuals.

They arise from the Parkland Event, and the subsequent national conversation, discussion, argument, and shouting match about school
massacres, gun control, and the Second Amendment that has ensued. While I am neither an NRA member nor even a gun owner, i
justify asking my questions on the basis of my being a retired US Army Master Sergeant with 28 years of service, including two in
Viet Nam and two in the pre-9/11 Middle East.

The questions are as follows, with amplification below:

1. To exactly which weapons and weapons systems does the Second Amendment apply?

2. What was the original purpose and intent of the Second Amendment?

3. What is the relevance of the Second Amendment today, as regards enabling Citizens to protect themselves from their own
National [or State, or Local] government[s]?

4. Is the "Right To Keep and Bear Arms" a Universal Right, applicable to all Citizens of all Nations, or just to Americans?

5. What is the linkage between the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment?

6. What are Y'All's thoughts, feelings, critiques, and suggestions regarding a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States?

This also includes an Addendum addressing "Gun Rights vs Needs," and another posing and poising similarly-minded
Questions to advocates of Gun Control and Beyond.

Thank You for Your consideration, and I look forward to Your response.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey G Moebus
Master Sergeant, US Army (Retired)
Veterans Against War [Sitka Platoon]
vaw.sirka@gmail.com
Sitka, Alaska
 Six Questions for the NRA

1. To exactly which weapons and weapons systems does the Second Amendment apply?

If the Second Amendment encompasses assault and automatic weapons, does that also include AK-47s along with AR-15s? What about
M60 7.62 mm and .50 caliber M2 machine guns? Or shoulder-fired grenade launchers, bazookas, and/or recoilless rockets? How about a
tank or surface-to-surface missiles? Mortars and artillery? Armed drones?

Is there any limit of any kind as to what type, size, and capability of weapon the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of individual [or
groups of] Citizens to Bear?

2. What was the original purpose and intent of the Second Amendment?

In addition to empowering Citizens to be able to protect themselves against Governments [both foreign and domestic] and, presumably, to
enable Citizens to fight off Criminals, both stranger or known, was it not also to arm Citizens against "The Other" [be they "Indians" or
other "Illegals," however defined in the parlance of the time]?

And, perhaps even more significantly ~ given how Slavery was written into the Constitution [otherwise there wouldn't have been a
Constitution or a "United States" to even begin with] ~ was it not also to protect Citizen Slave Owners against all them uppity nigger Slaves
and their cohort, co-conspiring Abolitionist chums n buds with guns of their own?

Or was the reason, rationale, and resolve to accomplish something else? Or some combination of All of the Above?

3. What is the relevance of the Second Amendment today, as regards enabling Citizens to protect themselves from their own National [or
State, or Local] government[s]?

If, indeed, the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment was [and still is] to enable Citizens to resist by violent force their own national
government should that become "necessary" [leaving aside for the moment the issue of exactly Who gets to determine What constitutes that
necessity, and Why, How, and When They are to determine that that point has been reached and breached, let alone Who gets to decide all
that and How it's determined that They are The Deciders]:

Do any of You folks honestly and sincerely believe that all Your assault, automatic, bump stock-enhanced weapons and mega-
capacity magazines will stand any chance whatsoever against the arms, armament, maneuverability, and fire power that Federal,
State, and/or Local authorities could ~ as necessitated by the tactical and strategic situation ~ bring to bear on the matter?

How do Y'All propose to handle the tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery? Or the tactical and strategic naval and air
support ~ the helicopter gunships, the F-16s, Cruise missiles, the B-1s and -52s? Or ~ if all else fails ~ the "Mother-Of-All-
Bombs II"? And the attendant fin/econwar-, cyber-, and psy/prop-ops activities?

Back in the day when the Second Amendment was crafted, the weaponries of war that were available to the Citizenry was
essentially the same that was available to government soldiers, police, and other agents of authority, force, and power: the single-
shot, manual reload musket. Those conditions have changed, considerably, would You not agree?

That a band [or bands] of Citizens armed with hand guns [from slingshots, muskets and shotguns, to fully automatic, bump-
humped assault rifles] would be able to successfully confront and survive This American government's military [let alone its
political, economic, and/or propaganda] weaponry is, at best, a totally delusional fantasy. And, at worst, it is a completely, very
bad ~ and sick ~ joke. Truly fitting for this, "The Age of Trump: Year Two."

4. Is the "Right To Keep and Bear Arms" a Universal Right, applicable to all Citizens of all Nations, or just to Americans?

If the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is applicable to every Human [and not just Americans]; and, If the primary purpose of that Right is to
protect Citizens against the predations of Government, both foreign and domestic:

Then, do the Citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Etc have the Right to Bear Arms against agents, elements, and organizations of
the Government of the United States, or their lackeys in the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Etc?

And, more specifically, do those Peoples have the Right to bring to bear what Arms can bring to and against The Peoples of that
United States who support that Government's actions in those countries by their taxes, indifference, and inaction?

For that matter, did The Peoples of Viet Nam have a Right to Bear Arms against first France, and then all those Americans? Or,
more currently: Do the People of Gaza have a Right to Bear Arms against not only Israel, but the only reason that Israel exists,
the United States? Or the Peoples of the US who enable that to happen?

5. What is the linkage between the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment?
 If the individual American has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ~ particularly in defense against actions of the Federal government ~ do
the individual States also have that Right, particularly if that Federal government has taken unto itself Power and Authority not delegated or
relegated to it by the Constitution?

The outcome of "The First American Civil War" [aka "The War Against Southern Independence"] did not answer this question. It
demonstrated only that "Might Makes Right," and that the Federal government can do anything that the States and the Citizens of those
States can't stop it from doing.

So again: What ~ if any ~ is the linkage between the Second and the Tenth Amendments?

6. Conclusion: An Open Letter to SwampLand including a proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Dear Swampland:

This is a sincere and heartfelt request that You and Your Owners and Operators do not waste neither Your, Their, nor, especially, OUR ~
We, The Peoples of the United States' ~ Time, Money, Energy, Effort, and/or Life Force on crafting, grafting, and rafting some sort of
Federal, National "Gun Control" Law.

Rather than that colossal waste of resources, please consider releasing the responsibility ~ to govern and manage the manufacturing,
distribution, sale, ownership, and use of guns and ammo ~ release that entirely to the 50 States, to do as They each individually [and/or in
concert, if so desired] deem fit.

One way to do that would be by repealing all of the Laws [and Court decisions] that give the Federal government responsibility for ~ and
thus jurisdiction and authority over ~ weapons and ammunition in the United States. Doing so would thereby return that responsibility ~
and attendant jurisdiction and authority ~ to each of those States.

A quicker, possibly cheaper, and no doubt far more interesting way to accomplish the same thing would be to propose to The States for
Ratification to The Constitution of The United States of America the following 28th Amendment to that document:

"In accordance with the Tenth Amendment to this Document, all responsibility, authority, jurisdiction, and enforcement pertaining
to the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership, and use of those weapons covered by the Second Amendment of this Document
shall be assumed by each of the individual States, as will the regulation of the conduct of all interstate transactions pertaining to
applicable weapons, weapons systems, and ammunition."

Given what's been going on up there over the last year [decade, 25, 75, 150 years or so], one can only imagine what sorts of wheels are
already being dealed, and what manner of deals are being wheeled thru the corridors and byways of the labyrinthine network, complex, and
matrix of Power and Wealth that is SwampLand, as Y'All try to craft some sort of an at least-momentarily satisfactory reaction and
response to events in Florida; what with the 2018 Mid-Terms approaching, and all, eh?

So... , why not just relax, and let the States worry about all that Stuff? Or at least give the States a chance to find out if Their Peoples want
to control at least That aspect of their own lives.

Every one of Y'All up there in SwampLand who have ever even bothered to actually think about it knows that there is no way in Heaven or
Hell that any kind of federally-mandated "Gun Control" Law is going to be accepted all over the Country, let alone be enforceable, let alone
be enforced.

Folks in some States may want total State government control in the extremest extent of all forms of all aspects of "gun control." Folks in
other States may want the absolute minimalest State government involvement in any aspect of it. And other Folks in yet other States may
want something in between.

Then again, some Folks in some States may want the Full Monty of State control of guns and ammo, while other Folks in that same State
may want zilch beyond the minimal administrative requirements. An attempt at the Federal level to effectively deal with this fact and
phenomenon ain't going to happen.

There is no way that anybody ~ not even You folks who make a living buying, selling, bartering, and trading access to Power as the
gateway to Wealth, "Greatness" [whatever that is], and more Power ~ can come up with a National Gun Control Law or Enforcement Plan
that has even the slightest chance of even slightly working Everywhere across the Nation. In fact ~ given the number of People who are
dead set against it even before negotiations begin, the odds are pretty good that it will hardly work anywhere; and if there, barely at all.

So... , Give It Up. It would be a lot easier, saner, safer, cheaper in both blood and treasure, and much more immediately, intermediately, and
long-termly cost effective ~ because more accepted ~ to let The Peoples of each of those 50 States decide for themselves just exactly how
much both the Tenth and the Second Amendments actually apply, and really mean to them.

If You dare.

With all due respect,

/s/
 Addendum 1

These "Questions for the NRA" grew out of a response to a couple of posts by Mr TJ Martinell to the Tenth
Amendment Center Blogs concerning school massacres, gun control, and the Second Amendment.

That response posed the above six Questions, plus two more:

a. In Your piece "Self-Defense: A Right Worth Fighting For," Mr Martinell, You note:

The right to bear arms is unique among the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as
the Bill of Rights, in that it is the only right which is self-preserving. In other words, all other
rights ultimately rely on the ability to resist to prevent their loss.[
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/self-defense-a-right-worth-fighting-for/ ; and
https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/posts/10155010263890764 ]

Have there not been instances in recent both World and American history when the Rights to Freedom of
Press, Assembly, and Speech have confronted, combated, defeated, and rendered inert, impotent, and
irrelevant ~ without recourse to even the threat of armed, deadly force with guns ~ all the firepower of
the resident Government and all its arms, ammunition, and other assorted accouterments of authority,
omnipotence, and perpetuity? [The demise and ultimate destruction of the Warsaw Bloc and the former
USSR coming most immediately to mind; along with the Civil Rights Movement in America in the 50s
and 60s.]

b. In Your piece "No Explanations Needed to Exercise Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms," You stated:

I don’t need to explain why I, or any other person, “needs” an AR-15 any more than I “need” a
copy of Brothers Karamazov or a first American edition of 1984. It is my right to purchase and
own them without having to give a reason to anyone.
[http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/02/no-explanations-needed-to-exercise-our-right-
to-keep-and-bear-arms/ ]

It is good to see at least an indication that You acknowledge that there exists a difference between
Human "Rights," on the one hand, and Human "Needs," on the other. To my mind,

By way of definition, Rights are what each, every, and all Human Beings are born with, by virtue
of being Human. Additionally, all Humans keep all those Rights unless and until they violate the
Rights of another Human [or, in some cases, maltreat at least some Animals].

All Humans still have all those Rights even when they are not recognized by, and are in fact
violated by other Humans [as, You noted, for example, in the case of Japanese-American Citizens
put into concentration camps after Pearl Harbor].

Those Rights are: Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Needs, on the other hand, are also what Humans are born with, and continue to have until they
die. They are: Health, Prosperity, Security, Freedom, and The Pursuit of Wants.

There are a couple of things that distinguish between Human Rights and Human Needs. The first
is that Rights are totally objective and that Needs are solely subjective.
 That is: Rights exist for every Human, everywhere and at all times ~ except as noted above ~ and
can only be eliminated, reduced, or otherwise ignored as the result of other Humans' deliberate,
purposeful actions to ignore, reduce, or eliminate those Rights.

Human Needs, on the other hand, can and do change with every Human, all the time: both the
Needs that are important, and what satisfactorily constitutes satisfying those Needs.

One Human's functioning, working definitions of "Health," "Prosperity," "Security," and

"Freedom" will differ not only with every other Human's, but will also change with each
individual's personal age and context: with their changing geographical and thus social,
cultural, political, economic, and environmental time, place, circumstance, and surroundings, on
the one hand; and with their personal, individual changing physical, emotional, psychological,
intellectual, and spiritual state, on the other.

As will also change Her, His, Our definition of "Wants" beyond those Needs: Wants being
defined as what we seek after, after and beyond all our basic biological, physiological,
emotional, psychological, intellectual, epistemological [if not ontological], spiritual, socio-
cultural, economic, political, and other Needs of Health, Prosperity, Security, and Freedom are
met.

The second distinction between Human Rights and Needs is that Human Needs are met almost
virtually and entirely as the direct result of ~ and ONLY as the direct result of ~ purposeful and
effective Human Action: of individual and group Human activity directed precisely ~ or even
obliquely ~ at meeting those Human Needs in an optimally efficient, effective, and efficacious
manner and way.

Or, as my Colonel once put it: "Shit doesn't 'just happen,' Soldier; it's caused."

And it is at this point, of course, that the troubled interaction between Human Rights and Human
Needs comes most poignantly and pungently into play: when the difference between Needs and
Rights are confused and/or deliberately ignored or at least obfuscated; when Needs are
regarded, proclaimed, and enforced [or at least attempted to be enforced] as Rights; and when
Rights are relegated as merely secondary, subordinate, and subservient to Needs, if they are even
recognized to exist at all.

An even cursory examination of History will confirm this, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, the Question [particularly in light of Question 1 above] is: Do You have a "need," a
"want," or a "right" to an AR-15?

###
 Addendum 2

And, if turn-about is fair play, here are some follow-ons to those questions to the NRA, Etc, directed, in
this case, to the advocates of Gun Control; i add a question or two for Gun Confiscators, as well:

1. Is the problem right now with legally-manufactured, distributed, sold, bought and owned
weapons and ammunition? Or is the problem with illegally manufactured, and/or illegally
distributed, and/or illegally sold [includes stolen], and/or illegally bought, and/or illegally owned
weapons and ammunition?

2. In either case, what do You intend to do with and about those who choose NOT to go by
whatever form of National "Gun Control" emerges out this whole affair, for whatever reason:
Second Amendmenters on the one hand; and Outlaws and Black Marketeers, on the other?

With, as always, an ever-available helping hand from global arms dealers and traders, those folks
who will make their living by providing weapons for these new Gun Law non-Compliants?

And, isn't that at least part of The Problem now? That folks can make a very good living trading
in arms; that they always have, do now, and ~ unless something about Human Nature changes
quite dramatically ~ that they always will?

3. In any case, how do You propose to enforce any new Federal-level Gun Control Law in those
areas whose Citizens marched, rallied, railed, and ranted ~ and whose Congressional Delegations
voted ~ against it, even after all the wheeling and dealing to get that new Law was done?

How do You plan to enforce that new Law out there in TrumpLand? Let alone in most US major
core, inner-urban areas?

And Who is going to enforce it for You?

4. For Gun Confiscation advocates: See Question 3 as applied to a Confiscation Law.

5. Also, along with "How do You intend to actually confiscate all those guns?" goes this: Along
with repealing the Second Amendment, what do You intend to do about the First?

###