Conference turris::womannotes-v3

	Yesterday I read some of the testimony given before the 
	House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime's April 20 hearing
	on HR-993, a bill which would make it unlawful for any
	person to manufacture, assemble, transfer, or possess 
	any handgun the Secretary of the Treasury "determines to 
	be unsuitable for lawful sporting purposes..."

	Some statements included in testimony against the bill
	from the national director of the "Firearms Coalition", 
	Neil Knox : 

	"Although handguns are primarily owned for sport and 	
	 recreation by white men, and owned and used only secondarily 
	 for protection, ... defense of family, home and property
	 if the primary reason for handgun ownership among women 
	 and blacks."

	From the chief of Firearms Division Law Enforcement of the 
	Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF):

	"HR-933 would amend Title I of the Gun Control Act to, in
	 effect, eliminate personal protection as a valid reason
	 for possessing a handgun."

	Knox (first quote above) also told the subcommittee his 
	wife Jay was upset that neither she nor any other women were 
	allowed to testify at the hearing (Jay also serves as a director
	of The Firearms Coalition).  "The sponsors and supporters of 
	this bill are attempting to take away my freedom from fear.
	That may not be the intent, but that will be the effect."

	The constitutionality of the bill was also raised with:

	"Firearms were not protected by the constitution because of
	 their sporting purposes.  To invent sport as the only 
	 criteria for owning a handgun is to amend the Constitution
	 illegally."

							nancy b.
						

This is also a carry over from the various comments in 172.x

In my (possibly flawed) memory it seems that in =wn= there have been calls
to support various pro-choice, pro-life, battered-women, etc. causes
either through marches or attendance and in some cases requests
for donations. some of these seem to be in the same political arena as would
a contribution of time/energy/used-clothing/money to the NRA.

I have no objection to anyone in any notesfile saying "please help *my* 
favorite cause for this-or-that reason"  if there is no personal gain
for the noter and the request violates no law or doesn't adversly affect
DEC business then what is the harm. 

*AND* why single out the NRA from other obviously political groups (NOW comes
to mind :-} )?

Amos

    Amos, to my best knowledge and recollection, there have been no such
    solicitations.  The only solicitations we allow are for causes that are
    essentially non-controversial (eg, humanitarian).

>          <<< Note 83.3 by RANGER::TARBET "Haud awa fae me, Wullie" >>>
>                       -< <*** Moderator Response ***> >-

>    Amos, to my best knowledge and recollection, there have been no such
>    solicitations.  The only solicitations we allow are for causes that are
>    essentially non-controversial (eg, humanitarian).

Please let me clarify a bit, I did not mean to lump any humanitarian requests
in with political, as I re-read I noticed I mentioned the Battered-women 
shelters, I apologise for that.

But isn't a request to go to washington for a rally lending support to
a political campaign? or even a notice that there will be an operation-
rescue rally in Boston?

DISCLAIMER: I REPEAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THESE KINDS OF REQUESTS
even in my "official" role of information security, I am merely wondering
why once again, the NRA is singled out as the evil-empire.
Thanks
Amos

To someone strongly "Pro-Life", NOW might be considered advocates of murder and
PLANNED PARENTHOOD outright murderers.  By comparison, the NRA merely advocates
protection of the right to own a tool which could be used to murder.

>         <<< Note 83.5 by COOKIE::BERENSON "Utopia is not an option" >>>
>                           -< Amos has a good point >-

>To someone strongly "Pro-Life", NOW might be considered advocates of murder and
>PLANNED PARENTHOOD outright murderers.  By comparison, the NRA merely advocates
>protection of the right to own a tool which could be used to murder.

That also applies to the American motorcycle club advocating the *right* to 
own a dangerous toy :-} or as has been stated advocating keeping the 
government *out*  of our daily lives.

    
    They haven't stopped taking registration fees from people 
    wanting to register bikes, have they?

    re .7 Since operating a vehicle on a public road is a privilege,
    while owning arms is a right, registration is not comparable.
    
    Compare instead that the same people who don't want you to have
    the right to choose whether you wear a helmet while biking also
    don't want you to have a choice as to whether you keep and bear
    arms for self-defense. Big Brother will take care of you, just
    do as we say. Wear this, strap in with that, don't own these.
    

    
    But you *can* bear arms for self defence.
    
    You just can't bear cannons, MGs, bazookas, nuke subs, tanks, 
    or weapons that take huge clips and fit in violin cases...
    
    People who do so usually fit into two groups:
    
    1) Nuts (present or future tense)
    
    2) Persons contemplating a serious breach of the peace, or a coup
       d'etat.
    

    re .7:
    
    One is not required to register a bike, at least not here
    in Massachusetts.
    

    RE: .11 I think that .7 may have meant motorcycles when they said
    bikes. Given all the children killed in bicycle accidents maybe
    the bikes should be registered? :-)

    		Alfred

re Note 83.13 by AERIE::THOMPSON:

>     PS	Isn't it yet obvious that nobody except a few zealots actually
>     	care if we have a 2nd amendment or not - as long as we have the
>     	right to our 1st amendment freedom to whine about it in public?
  
        At the national level, it would be really interesting to see
        an alliance between those who fear erosion of the 1st
        amendment and those who fear erosion of the 2nd amendment. 
        They have an underlying belief in common:  that once you
        start to limit a right, there is no telling how far it may
        go.

        Curiously, these two groups seem to be nearly disjoint: 
        those who would protect the 2nd amendment seem to come from
        the political right, while those who would protect the first
        amendment would seem to come from the left.

        Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could come to see that they
        have so much in common?  This is, of course, assuming that
        their chief objective is preservation of rights, and not
        political posturing!

        Bob

    Herb, there's a difference between being emotionally involved
    in one's position and lettin one's position be dictated *by*
    emotion, even when the facts disprove that position.

    From the net:
    *******************************************************************************
    
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 10:49:52 PDT
From: Bryan Williams CFSSG/Networks 226-5846 16-Jul-1990 1342 <williams@bagels.enet.dec.com>
To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Joan Rivers picked up her LTC Friday..
 
 
In today's Manchester (NH) Union Leader, page 40 (**)
 
  "Can we shoot? Joan Rivers can now be legally armed, if not dangerous.
  New York Newsday reports Rivers picked up a pistol permit at New York
  City police headquarters Friday and she now has 30 days to buy a
  handgun, which she will be allowed to carry on the street. When Rivers
  was at 1 Police Plaza, she also toured the department's communications
  Division, which handles about 8 million 911 calls a year. She denied
  she was in the building to pick up the gun permit, saying she came for
  the tour because her daughter, Melissa, writes for the television show
  'Rescue 911' and she wanted to see the real thing to give her some
  ideas. Newsday said cops in the licensing division said otherwise."
 
Bryan
 
------- End of Forwarded Message
 
    LTC = license to carry 
    
    By the way, I understand that other celebreties with an LTC (and
    presumably a gun) are Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy.
    
       Margaret
    

    This has bothered me for a long time:
    
    "The need for an *organized militia* being understood, the citizens'
    right to bear arms shall not be ubridged."
    
    Since when does the private ownership of firearms constitute an
    "organized militia?"  I know that the Supreme Court has *interpretted*
    this to mean otherwise, but by looking at the words, I see a right to
    bear arms under organized military supervision, such as the national
    guard.
    
    where, in this amendment, is there an argument for the unorganized
    ownership of firearms? (For the sake of my position, let me state that
    I do not consider current licensing or waiting period regulations to be
    an organized militia)
    
    daniel

RE .21

I believe the notion of an organized militia (in them thar days) involved 
calling together a bunch of citizens as need arose (like hiding behind rocks
along the road to a silly little bridge in Concord), and the citizens would
provide their own weaponry. If the citizenry is armed, there's a lot less
effort required to put together a militia - just show up and BYOG.

I'm not arguing a particular side to this, since the nature of weaponry has
changed to the extent that a bunch of citizens with the kind of weapons 
individuals are reasonably expected to need for raccoon hunting were much more
effective against the kind of standing armies that existed 200 years ago than
they would be today. Given the technology of the times, it would have been lower
overhead to call together a militia with privately owned guns than maintain
a central armory and hand out guns to people who show up.

As to how applicable this notion is in modern times, there's also the question 
of who is responsible for organizing the "militia" these days. If it's not the 
National Guard (which maintains its own armory), are we talking vigilantes 
or what?

	Paul

    re .21:
    
    > "The need for an *organized militia* being understood, the citizens'
    > right to bear arms shall not be ubridged."
    
    Ahem, I don't believe this is the text of the 2nd ammendment.
    
    - M
    

    I know definitely that it mentions *organized militia*

    A quick look in my Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (which doesn't contain
    the entire text) lists it as referring to a "well-regulated militia".
    

    re .24:
    
    You're kidding, right?
    
    - M
    
                           Amendments. Article {II}
    
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed.

    okay, thanks for getting me straight on the precise wording!
    
    However, when I look at that, I still do not see an implied right to
    "keep and bear arms" in the current way that we do in America.  If 
    military service were cumpulsory and everyone stayed in the reserves
    after a required tour, then I would see folks keeping guns at home as
    part of a well-regulated militia since they could be called to service
    at any time.
    
    But this isn't what we have today, is it?
    
    still wondering,
    
    daniel

    At the time of the Constitution 'compulsory military service'
    was not the ideal. The Founding Fathers believed in equality,
    (yeah, I know, for white male property-owners, take it to the 
    rathole,please) and generally distrusted standing armies. The
    notion of ordinary citizens being capable of determining their
    own fates was revolutionary at the time. Sometimes it seems to
    me that the idea is *still* too radical for a great many folks.
    
        

	
	Why argue about this at all --  within the next 10 years,
	private ownership of firearms of any kind will be illegal.

	What is happening now is a slow and gradual erosion of 
	the RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms).  This erosion will
	continue because there aren't enough people who care about 
	preserving the right to legal ownership, and the politicians 
	simply are not listening to those who do care WHATSOEVER.

	It's a done deal.
						nancy b.

    I've always been of the opinion that the word "people" included
    me. It does say "right of the people" not "right of the milita"
    doesn't it.
    
    		Alfred

    the question is in what *form*?  a well-regulated militia has a much
    more definable form than what we have now as a result of the amendment

    I think I said this before, but the supreme court has never (up to
    the  mid  70s  when  my  references  were  printed)  supported  an
    individual's  right  to have any weapon. There's remarkably little
    case  law on this (the only article of the constitution with fewer
    cases  is  the one that allows you not to board soldiers), but the
    court  did  (I  think  in the 1930s) allow a law that prohibited a
    citizen  from  keeping  some  weapon.  (I  don't remember what the
    weapon was, but it seeme to me to be clearly a military weapon and
    not  a  sporting  one.)  I've heard reliable people say that there
    have  been no further cases since my references were published, so
    as far as I can tell, an individual not related to any militia has
    no  constitutional  protection for his keeping guns. This is based
    on  the  precedents  that  I'm  aware of, Reagan's appointees seem
    quite willing to overrule precedents.

--David

First, keep in mind that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was a concept
that was being "sold" to a young nation.  As such, to "sell" this idea, it was
written so the normal layman could read it and understand what it meant. It was
not written for lawyers, for if it was, it would have never been accepted by
"the people."  Keep in mind the simplicity and clarity of thought that went into
this document as you read it; first and foremost it was meant to be understood
by people such as you and I.

                           Amendments. Article {II}
    
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed.

If you parse the above statement using normal English sentence structure, there
is no way that the second half of the sentence (after the second comma) is
restricted by the first part.  In other words, we have a reason stated for the
Second Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State..." followed by how that shall be accomplished "...the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Whereas in the First
Amendment the founding fathers merely restricted the government's power to
infringe on the the rights of "the people" in terms of religion and speech, the
founding fathers felt so strongly about the right to keep and bear arms that
they supplied a reason to back up the Second.

Let's rewrite the Second using a palatable analogy:

    A well organized car club, being necessary for transportation, the right
    of the people to keep and drive cars, shall not be infringed.

Now does this in any way imply that one must be part of a car club to keep and
drive a car?  Or does it establish and guarantee a resource pool of drivers that
can be called upon to form a car club if necessary?

Ignore for now such reasoning along the lines as "well, nowadays that's no
longer necessary."  Do you wish to set a precedent where any of the Bill
of Rights can be labeled "no longer necessary" and violated at the whim of
the government?  Because that is the precedent that is trying to be set
even as I type.

Also note that in order to allow the Second to be redefined in the sense of a
organized group of people (the Army or the National Guard), you nullify other
individual rights that use the same pivotal phrase "the people."  If you allow
"the people" to be redefined to mean an organized group of people, then the
first amendment that uses "the people" as well as the entire Constitution "We
the people.." take on new meanings; meanings that I, personally, don't like. 
Meanings along the lines that if "the people" in the Second means "the
Government" then only the government has a right to free speech!

I know that many out there don't like guns; but violation of individual rights
is not the answer -- Unless you want to set the precedent where all the rights
can be declared null and void at the whim of the government.  Keep in mind
that whatever restrictions are applied to the Second can, because it's simply
consistent, be applied to the first because both are anchored by the phrase
"the people."

Again, I know there are many who don't like guns; all I ask is that you think
of the ramifications and side effects of what you're trying to do and what
effect it will have on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Remember,
we live in a Republic, *not* a Democracy -- at least for the time being.

                         Roak

    re .32 The Supreme Court upheld the ban on sawed-off shotguns
    on the grounds that they were *not* suited to military use.
    Today's attempt to limit military-style weapons flies in the
    face of that decision. (1934)

    re .32:
    
    The ruling on the case in question (Miller vs U.S) was that because the
    weapon in question, a sawed off shotgun, was NOT a regular part of the
    arsenal of the armed forces, ownership was not protected under the 2nd
    ammendment.  
    
    - M

Re: .33

    I think  we  differ  on what a dependant clause implies. As I read
    it,  the  first clause does limit the second. Your example doesn't
    change  this. I know of no constitiutional scholar who agrees with
    the position you state.

    Anyway, the  supreme court has *NEVER* accepted your position, and
    has accepted the opposite a couple of times.

--David

    I have to agree with .36.  The first clause definitely modifies the
    second...it would serve no purpose otherwise.  I can't really accept
    your example of a car club because if it were in the constitution as
    such, I would expect that the government could mandate belonging to a
    government approved car club before owning and operating a car.
    
    The way the 2nd amendment is worded grants no implicit ownership of
    guns without taking the form of some regulating body to manage and
    supervise the *people* in their use of firearms.  Is this body the NRA? 
    Not currently because not all gun owners are members.  Nor does NRA
    membership require some form analogous to a well-regulated militia
    (Please correct me if I am wrong, but I haven't heard of NRA membership
    requiring training ranges, etc.)
    
    Sounds like the "right" as we practice it in America is really a
    "privelege" granted by court interpretation...are 20,000 handgun deaths
    a year enough for the court to start enforcing this the way the right
    was stated?
    
    daniel

    >20000 handgun deaths a year
    
    Now, Daniel, that is very wrong. The number is closer to 
    seven thousand. Of those seven thousand the majority are
    persons engaged in criminal activity 'caught in the act'.
    Of the remainder, many are suicides. I don't bleed for the
    first group, and don't think lack of guns would stop the
    second.
    
    Dana

    Dana, are the majority of those handgun-dead really persons engaged in
    criminal activity?  I would have thought that a large percentage of
    people killed by handguns would be the victimes of those engaged in
    criminal activity.  I've often seen the bumper sticker:  If guns are
    outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
    
    aq
    

    re .37
    
    Then please explain the Constitution's reference to governing the PART
    of the militia that is employed in the Service of the United States. 
    Why not just say "governing the militia"??

    Militia means armed citizens, period.

    - M

Re: <<< Note 83.37 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>

...20,000 Handgun deaths

We can go down the stats rathole or we can stick to the 2nd.

I mean if we wanted to argue deaths, isn't that strong case for making abortion
illegal?  How many abortions are performed a year?  Doesn't matter because
you have a right to an abortion?  Where's the consistency in that reasoning?

Note, I'm pro-choice; it's just that I get incensed when I see people cry
"rights!" When they agree with something and cry "privilege!"  when they don't.

You got your 20,000 deaths dig in, I got my abortion dig in, we're even so let's
take further discussion along those lines to the rathole.

Again, ignoring so called "Constitutional Scholars" how do YOU parse the
sentence to arrive at the conclusion that you must be part of the organized
militia?  Remember, this document was not written for "Constitutional Scholars"
it was written for you and me.  We're both capable of coming to our own
conclusions.

Do you think the founding fathers, after drafting such a wondrous document as
the Constitution would, when drafting the BoR *woops* drop a "governmental
right" (somewhat of a null concept if you stop to think of it) in the midst of
eight other individual rights?  Do you think they sprinkled the phrase "the
people" around at random?

                             Roak

    for starters, a "well-regulated" militia implies some form of control,
    whether that is from a private organization like the NRA or from teh
    federal government is a matter of interpretation.  The clear
    implication from the Constitution is a controlled and regulated
    militia.
    
    Re: .38
    
    Wrong.  The number of handgun deaths in this country is much higher
    than 7,000.  My original number may be too high, but if I rmember
    correctly, the number was in the vicinity of 14, 00 and guees what?  A
    large proportion of those deaths were due to *family* members shooting
    each other.  Got much sympathy there?

    re .36, Witt:
    
    You should know better than to believe that the Supreme Court is
    always right, David.  How about the Webster case?  Just because
    the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn't mean their constitutional
    interpretation is right always.
    

    re.42 >for starters, a "well-regulated" militia implies some form
    >of control, whether that is from a private organization like the
    >NRA or the federeal government is a matter of interpretation
    
    Since the whole Bill of Rights exists to severely limit the powers
    of government, the latter is doubtful. Since the NRA didn't exist
    at the time, the first is equally doubtful. Is it just remotely
    possible that the framers of the Constitution believed that each
    person was capable of controlling *himself* ? That people were
    fundamentally good, responsible, and capable of acting with
    self-discipline ? That such persons could cooperate freely when
    the need, such as invasion, arose ? 
    
    If there's one thing I like about the Founding Fathers, they
    believed in *people*, not a surfeit of laws and police.

Re: <<< Note 83.42 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>

>>    for starters, a "well-regulated" militia implies some form of control,

I agree, but how does stating a reason (the first part) place restrictions
on the second part (the means)?

Again, read it; there are two distinct parts, unlike the first which only
states the means.

The Constitution was not ratified by many of the states until a Bill of
Rights was also included; remember, these people had just shaken off the yoke
of a tyrannical government, a mind set many, if not all of us, cannot fully
understand.  They wanted to be assured that this new central government did
not take on the same characteristics of the old.  To that end, the Bill
of Rights acknowledged nine individual rights, the tenth reserving all powers
not granted to the United States Government to the states, or the people.

Again, what would cause the founding fathers to state a "Governmental
Right" (still an empty concept) in the midst of eight individual rights?

Opinion please, if you had lost relatives and friends fighting against
a tyrannical government, you you have voted for a Constitution and a Bill
of Rights that said "the government can raise an Army, but you cannot
bear arms if the Government says you can't?"

Remember, the confiscation of arms was what touched off the war, and arms
was the means that allowed us to win it.

                            Roak

I should also point out that the Bill of Rights was the people placing
restrictions on the new government; it was *not* the government granting
rights to the people.

An important, but mostly lost distinction.

                                Roak

	I thought someone would have mentioned it by now, but 
	I've read that the militia as used in the constitutition
	was defined as:

	MILITIA :  *every* able-bodied male over the age of []   

	or something like that.  Has anyone else come across that?
	Well, at least that explains why _women_ can't get licenses
	to carry :-). 

	Also, Daniel, where did you get the (incorrect) 20,000 number?

							nancy b.

    
    	Also, Mr. Wittenberg, in the past 2 months I read about
    	a case involving a Native American that was heard by
    	the Supreme Court where the decision was favorable to
    	an individuals right to keep and bear arms.
    
    	I will try to dig that up this week.  (Does anyone who
    	gets the GOAL (Gun Owner's Action League) newsletter
    	remember about reading it there?)
    
    						nancy b.
    

    Frankly, I'm not overjoyed with the romanticizing of the "founding
    fathers"  From what I've studied, the revolution seems more like a
    battle for the sake of John Hancock's profit than for the common
    people.
    
    When the mollasses (sp???) tax was high and not enforced, everyone was
    happy.  When it was cut in half and enforced to help pay for the war
    England had just fought to keep the colonies from becoming French, the
    merchants raised holy hell.  While I believe that many of the founders
    did believe in the new ideas, I think many of them used them mainly to
    get the regular people to agree to go to a war that didn't change much
    about their lives.
    
    Now...Nancy B.  I got that inaccurate "fact" from my faulty information
    retrieval system, that's where...sheez.
    
    On the subject of the wording:  *I* parse as an English major by seeing
    a dependant clause that modifies the meaning of the second half.  If it
    were only meant as a statement of need, then even then, the need
    acknowledged is for a well-regulated militia.  While in the colonial
    times people were able to organize into militia units (ie. minute men),
    I don't consider that to be much of a relevent concept these days apart
    from the National Guard.  The times have certain changed, and the
    private ownership of firearms outside of any regulating structure, has
    resulted in another nasty aspect of our cycle of violence in this
    country.
    
    I am not specifically calling for a total removal of people "keeping
    and bearing arms" but what I would suggest is a reading of the
    amendment in a way that lets its "meaning" evolve for our society and
    in a way that takes the wording a little more seriously instead of
    dismissing it a preamble (if we ignored the main preamble of the
    Constitution, the federal government would be Libetarian in nature)
    
    You say the "founding fathers" had faith in people...maybe they could
    also recognize the hazard on unrestricted, unsupervised firearms
    
    daniel

    
    
    	To Daniel (and anyone else - I'd like to hear what people think 
    		   about this question...)
    
    	Who should be able to obtain firearms and who shouldn't ?
    	(i.e., pretend you had total power to control this)
    
    					    nancy b.
    		

(I'm not Daniel, but...)

If I had "total" control, then I'd say anybody could have 'em who wouldn't do
anything with 'em that I would disapprove of. Seems simple enough.

The concept of total control doesn't really help much in a complex issue, 
because it's fantasy.

	Paul

    Sometimes I lose track of what it is that's being argued here.
    
    First of all, I wish that no one wanted to own guns.  The noise frightens
    me, and I still think the average person is more likely to be killed or
    injured by her/his own gun (or see a loved one killed or injured)
    than s/he is likely to defend her/himself with that gun.  One
    thing that is even clearer to me is that in a lot of the domestic
    abuse cases that end up with one spouse/so shooting the other, some
    of those folks might not be dead now if there hadn't been a gun
    handy.  It's true that some folks might have been stabbed, bludgeoned, 
    or beaten to death anyway, but I don't think that's true of all the cases.
    I think there's something about a gun's relative ease of use and 
    irreversability that makes it a very dangerous thing to have in a home.
    (I survived an abusive relationship, but I'm not sure I would have
     if there had been a gun in the house.)
    
    These are my opinions, and so I don't own a gun.  I also would not
    knowingly let someone bring a gun into my home (obviously, I wouldn't
    ask a cop to disarm before s/he came in the house).  If anyone ever 
    asked my opinion about buying a gun, I would advise against it.  I would 
    also approve of reasonable waiting periods (not sure how that would be) 
    for the issuing of gun permits, mandatory training for gun owners, and 
    mandatory safe storage (this last one isn't really enforceable, but I'd 
    like it to be against the law to leave guns lying around when there are
    children present.)  I think it should take some time and require some
    thought for anyone to buy a dangerous weapon.  So I guess some might
    say that I want to limit a person's right to bear arms.  And in all
    honesty, given my opinions, it might be partly true.  I probably
    would like to limit a person's ability to own a gun.  But fortunately,
    I don't have that right -- I don't get to have my way.  But I do have
    a right to some amount of safety, as we all do.  I think placing
    restrictions on the types of guns a person can own and on their
    use and storage is a reasonable way of protecting both her/his right
    to bear arms and my right to be safe.
    
    Justine

    Nancy,
    
    if I had *total power* I'd get rid of *all* firearms from our society. 
    while I was on the matter, I'd probably try to do something about our
    over sized army.
    
    but like Paul said...that's hitting the realm of fantasy.
    
    daniel

    RE .54 OK, you've gotten rid of the guns. Now, how do you
    propose that people defend themselves from, a) larger, stronger
    assailants ? b) assailants with knives or clubs? c) multiple
    assailants ?

    gee, I could have sworn I said that I was dealing with the realm of
    fantasy.
    
    so long as I'm there, I'd probably start a large scale remodeling of
    our schools and society into a subversive education secnario wherein we
    might actually have some real freedom of choice in this country.  if
    there really is a chance for breaking the cycle of social reproduction
    theory, we might actually have a shot at seriously decreasing the
    violence that it produces.  While I'm at it, I'd overhaul our prison
    system into what we pretend to call them -- correctional facilities
    instead of holding pens for the disadvantaged.
    
    like I said, the realm of fantasy, but maybe if we work at it, we could
    start a slow move into this direction.
    
    daniel

    re: .55 Dana
    
    Well, Dana, I have to point this out:  suppose you HAVE a gun.
    
    OK, you have a gun.  Now, how do you propose that people with guns
    defend themselves from, a) larger, stronger assailants with guns ? b)
    assailants with guns and knives or clubs ? c) multiple assailants with
    guns ?
    
    I see your point but I hope you see mine, too ... .54 was talking about
    fantasy land here.  What I describe above is current reality! 
    
    I just ducked into this debate and I'm going to duck out, see ya!
    Pam

    re .56 Do me a favor, please. Make all the socioeconomic changes,
    eliminate poverty and crime *first* and *then* we'll talk about
    getting rid of the guns. Frankly, I don't believe you'll ever
    accomplish the former. Some people simply see crime as easier
    than work, no matter how prosperous everybody is.
    
    re .57 Legitimate gun owners tend to practice more than illegitimate
    gun owners. I'll take my chances. Again, if you can disarm the criminals
    *first*, *then* we'll talk about *my* guns.

    re: .58  Dana
    
    I'm not talking about reasonably fair odds (leg. gun owner vs. illeg.
    gun owner, one-on-one).
    
    Seriously, you with gun vs. 4-5 (we'll keep the multiple small)
    criminals with guns.  Are you really *that* much safer or likely to
    come out of it alive than if none of you had guns?
    
    Pam

    Dana,
    
    Guess we disagree about the source of crime then.
    
    Oh well...that's why I'm going off to become an educator eventually
    
    daniel

    re. the string on the meaning of the Second Amendment
    
    My right to own firearms does not derive from the Constitution.
    That document is an attempt to codify certain principles into
    a working government. However, it is the principles that ultimately
    matter. I have the right to live. No matter where I live, I have
    that right. If the ruling government does not recognize, respect
    and protect that right, that government means nothing to me.
    My right to life means that I have the right to self-defense when
    attacked. I have this right whether I live in the US or the USSR.
    I have the right to own and use whatever means are necessary to
    defend my life. Again, the government of wherever I am may or may
    not *recognize* this right, but the right remains. Some day I
    expect the government of the US to deny my rights. On that day
    I will disavow the government, and go on living as I believe.
    
    Governments do not grant rights, they merely, to various degrees,
    protect those rights. The legitimacy of a government is directly
    proportion to how well it defends the rights of its citizens.
    Sadly, the best government ever devised, that of the US, is slipping
    downward on this scale. I just wish there were a better place to
    move.
    
    Dana

    re.59 Pam, since you can't disarm the criminals, but you *can*
    disarm me, would you do that ? That's the crux of the problem.
    That's what scares hell out of me. 
    
    And yes, me with a gun vs. 5 criminals with guns would be preferable
    to me with a knife vs. 5 criminals with knives. 
    
    Dana

	RE: .59 Studies have shown that people who do not resist at all
	are hurt more often then people who resist at all. I seem to remember
	there being a big difference.

	I am constantly surprised at the number of people here so willing to
	legislate morality though. Thought this was a pro-choice group.

			Alfred

    re: .61
    
    Dana,
    
    I'd like to thank you for this kind of note.  I asked my question that
    reopened this string hoping to start a discussion of *meaning* in the
    second amendment.  While we may disagree on what that meaning is, I
    appreciate a thoughtfully written note addressing that topic.
    
    daniel

    I'm speaking  here  only  to the question of what the constitution
    says,  and  what that means, and am explicitly not discussing what
    it should say.

    Ellen, I  know  the  supreme  court  isn't  always  right,  but it
    sometimes  is,  and  I  know of no case where they interpreted the
    second amendment to allow guns outside of the militia. (Apart from
    the case NancyB mentioned, and I'd like more details there.)

    NancyB, I'd like to see the case you refered to. My first guess is
    that  a case involving a native American is more likely to turn on
    treaty law than the second amendment. Can you get me a copy of the
    decision?

    Someone raised  the issue of the militia when under control of the
    US.  That  distinguishes  it  from the normal case when each state
    controlled  its own militia. A standing army is a new development,
    and  it  used  to be that each state had its own militia which the
    central government could call on in times of war. That militia has
    become  the  national gaurd, which is why some governors were able
    to  keep  the  national  guard  from  their  states out of Central
    America  (though  the  court  later  ruled that this was no longer
    acceptable, a strange decision at best.)

    It is  interesting  to  note that the second amendment is the only
    part  of  the  Bill of Rights that gives a reason for a right. The
    fact  that it is different from the others in this way is a reason
    to  believe that it was meant to convey rights differently. If the
    first  amendment  said  "A  well informed populace being essential
    ..."  I  would  probably  interpret  it  to  protect  news but not
    literature.  In  order  to argue for a constitutional right to gun
    ownership  (outside  of  a  militia), one must explain this point.
    I've  seen  few  attempts  to  do  so,  and so far, none that were
    convincing.

    It is  interesting  that  there  have  been few recent cases about
    this.  The  NRA has the money to take a case to the supreme court,
    and  I'm  sure they could find a case to do so. Perhaps they think
    that they are more likely to succeed politically.

--David

Re: <<< Note 83.65 by ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure People" >>>

>>    Ellen, I  know  the  supreme  court  isn't  always  right,  but it
>>    sometimes  is,  and  I  know of no case where they interpreted the
>>    second amendment to allow guns outside of the militia. (Apart from
>>    the case NancyB mentioned, and I'd like more details there.)

>>    NancyB, I'd like to see the case you refered to. My first guess is
>>    that  a case involving a native American is more likely to turn on
>>    treaty law than the second amendment. Can you get me a copy of the
>>    decision?

Nope, just a plain-ole citizen.

As long as we're asking people to produce documentation, please produce
documentation on the decisions that you elude to.

The 1934 decision was simply that becuase a sawed-off shotgun was not a militia
weapon (it was, but there was no defense present to refute the claim), it was
not protectd under the second.  Clear and simple.  Note that the defendant was
*not* a member of the armed forces.  Just a citizen.

>>           The  NRA has the money to take a case to the supreme court,
>>    and  I'm  sure they could find a case to do so. Perhaps they think
>>    that they are more likely to succeed politically.

No, SCotUS just refuses to hear the cases; many have been appealed to it.

>>                                                               If the
>>    first  amendment  said  "A  well informed populace being essential
>>    ..."  I  would  probably  interpret  it  to  protect  news but not
>>    literature.  In  order  to argue for a constitutional right to gun
>>    ownership  (outside  of  a  militia), one must explain this point.
>>    I've  seen  few  attempts  to  do  so,  and so far, none that were
>>    convincing.

So you felt that my car club example implied that one had to be part of a car
club to own a car?  Why put a 'governmental right' in the midst of eight
individual rights?  Were the framers *that* sloppy?

Note that the second originally had the text:

The right to keep and bear arms, FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, shall not be infringed.

This was dropped because the founding fathers thought it detracted from the
fact that the second was referring to an individual right.

                               Roak

    re: .67
    
    I think it is an excellent point that this is the *only* amendment to
    start with a reason.  One cannot simply dismiss that half of the
    wording as simple preamble.  If it is there, the simplest assumption is
    that there is a *reason* for it to be there.
    
    Your car club example I would read the same way I am looking at the
    second.  If there were an amendment mentioning a well regulated car
    club as necessary for public safety, etc.  I would definitely expect
    that the feds could require people belong to, say, AAA.  Similarly, as
    mentioned, if the first had a similar preamble, I agree that the
    government would most likely be within its sphere to limit artistic
    expression.
    
    The first doesn't have one.  This one does.
    
    daniel

    I was  unaware  of the supreme court refusing to hear these cases.
    That  generally  means  either  that  they support the lower court
    ruling, they don't feel there's an important constitutional issue,
    or  they've got too much work to do. In any event, this does imply
    that  the  court  was,  at  the time, not inclined to overturn the
    existing law.

    I'll try  to  dig  up  the  cases  I  was  refferring to. The most
    interesting thing to me is how few cases there were.

--David

    I think the car club example is too far off the mark.  Let me try
    another one:
    
    "A well-funded government, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to earn money from their work, shall not
    be infringed"
    
    To me, this example pretty clearly illuminates that the "enabling
    clause" is not exclusive; money (or guns) are needed for government
    purposes so people can amass them...but our "excess" can be kept or
    disposed of to suit our own selves.
    
    						=maggie

    Well, thought out Maggie...thank you.  It's definitely a point to
    ponder!
    
    daniel

	FWIW, I have a copy of a Senate committee report on the 2nd amendment
	in soft copy (actually DECwindows Bookreader but with the SDML I can
	make other kinds - send mail if you want a copy.) The appendix on
	case law, in it's introduction, comments that the three SC cases that
	deal directly with it (Dred Scott, Miller vs US, Lewis vs US) support
	the right being an individual right.

			Alfred

	PS: Someone name Ted Kennedy was part of the committee BTW.

    You then make an anonymous call to the police stating that <name
    of your ex-husband> is carrying an illegal gun, and may be found
    in one of the following locations: ....
    
    							Ann B.

    I just can't see why there is such a problem with some reasonable
    precautions before buying a weapon of deadly force.  Cars are big,
    heavy, rapidly moving objects that are involved in the deaths of
    thousands of people every year.  Before you are allowed to operate one,
    you must prove your competancy to the registrar.  You are issued a
    license that is subject to being revoked if you consistently prove that
    you are not responsiible with the vehicle and that license is subject
    to renewal and further testing.
    
    Why is it so unreasonable to ask for similar precautions for objects
    that are designed to kill people?
    
    I'm looking at the dependent clause on the second amendment and I still
    say that it has to be there for a reason, otherwise it would not have
    been included.  A dependant clause modifies the meaning of the
    independent clause, and this implies a certain degree of regulation
    that is permissible so that private ownership of weapons does not fall
    into anarchy.
    
    Why can't the same safety precautions applied to our *transportation*
    be applied to our firearms?
    
    daniel

    re .76 Suppose your drivers license were subject to the whims
    of your local police chief ? And he didn't like (women, blacks,
    Jews, whatever) ? 

    Anyway, your analogy doesn't hold. Self-defense is a *right*,
    while operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege.
    
    I do believe in firearms education, however, I oppose making it
    mandatory. 

    I *know* that driving is ocnsidered a privilege, although it seems that
    basic ability to transport yourself is more essential on a day to day
    basis...
    
    what you're not addressing is the fact that this is the *only* right in
    the bill of rights to be given a stated reason before hand and that
    reason mentions an unspecified degree of regulation.
    
    so again, what is so unreasonable about giving objects designed to kill
    people the same degree of regulation given to our methods of
    transportation?  why is that so unreasonable? because of hypothetical
    questions? yes, those events occur, but I find asking rhetorical
    questions about situations like that to be extraordinarily unfair and
    please to knee-jerk responses.  my general answer to questions like
    that are "I don't know how I'd respond and I hope to h*ll I never find
    out"
    
    if those are the only arguments you have against what IMO seems to be a
    very basic form of regulation then sorry, I don't see why unregulated
    access to firearms is such an essential right.

    re .79 >I don't see why unregulated access to firearms is such
           >an essential right.

    Simple. When you need a gun you need it a) very badly and 
    b) right *now*. Even regulated access doesn't work. John
    Hinckley had a gun long before he attacked President Reagan.
    Also, his history of mental problems was not sufficient to
    stop him from buying guns. Patrick Purdy was several times
    arrested and charged with crimes that would have put him away,
    and made him ineligible to buy guns. So what ? He got all the 
    charges plea-bargained down. A seven-day wait, a seven-*month*
    wait would have not stopped him.
    
    If you really are serious about stopping violent crime, put an
    end to plea-bargaining, build enough jails to put the scum away
    for good, hire enough prosecuting attorneys and judges and cops
    to put the scum where they belong. Then the guns, which don't
    pull their own triggers, won't be so much a factor.
        

    thanks for reading what I say so carefully...
    
    i don't say that there is a case for banning all weapons, but that the
    way the amendment is worded allows for a degree of regulation and that
    licensing after proving competancy and waiting periods for background
    checks are a more than reasonable degree. I like to think that I have
    enough belief in the amendment to read *all* of it, not just the half
    that suits me.
    
    daniel

Daniel, I take it that you've pondered Maggie's point in .70:

>>    "A well-funded government, being necessary to the security of a free
>>    State, the right of the people to earn money from their work, shall not
>>    be infringed"

because you responded:

>>    Well, thought out Maggie...thank you.  It's definitely a point to
>>    ponder!

Daniel, I know you don't like guns and you'd like to see "reasonable" controls
placed on them; But for a moment objectively analyze the Second Amendment and
Maggie's restement above.

Does Maggie's statement apply *only* to government employees?  and if not, what
is the structural difference between it and the Second Amendment?

If we can get over this point, we can move on to bigger and better things...

                            Roak

    Mark,
    
    What makes you think that if *today* a woman perceives that she
    will need a gun *today* that, even if she gets her gun *today*,
    she will be able to use it more effectively *today* than her
    possible assailant?
    
    Nope, make the phone call, arrange the wax bust so it is silhouetted
    against the window, and leave.  :-)
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I don't have anything against the Second Amendment (except
    that that is not a full dependant clause); I'm just aware of how
    many people shoot more badly (worsely?) than I do.

    yes, I have pondered Maggie point, and come to the conclusion that the
    structure of the sentence allows for the "security of the state" to be
    facilitated by "a well-funded government" with a strong understanding
    that that funding is to be secured from income tax dollars.
    
    as that relates to the structure of the second amendment:
    
    it allows for the "common defense" to be facilitated by a
    "well-regulated militia" with the understanding that that militia may
    be comprised of people keeping and bearing arms.
    
    NOW...the semantics recognize a need for the people's owning of
    firearms to, in some way, constitute a well-regulated militia.  From
    this, I derive a governmental responsibility to make certain that
    access to firearms is in some way regulated to guarantee that the
    private ownership of weapons does not result in anarchy.  Hence, I find
    it perfectly reasonable for a licensing procedure and regulation
    process similar to motor vehicles.  While automobiles are regulated as
    a privileges, the semantics of the second amendment makes it clear that
    there it is not a totally unconditional right and this seems like a
    respectable ground for trying to keep private ownership of weapons from
    becoming an UN-regulated militia.  Both cars and guns are potentially
    lethal -- the regulation process attempts (with, admittedly, limited
    success -- highway fatalities are high) to limit access to those who
    have demonstrated recklessness.
    
    I don't understand where you got the impression that it would only
    apply to governemnt employees -- could you clear that up?
    
    I've tried to explain my position thoroughly.  It breaks down to:
    1) this is the only right with some reason stated attached to it.
    2) that reason can be derived to give some regulatory responsibilities
    to  the right.
    3) I'm not saying ban all guns, but rather have what seems to me to be
    a basic process wherin a potential gun operator has to demonstate
    competancy, knowledge of the law, not have a past record, continue to
    obey laws concerning gun use, have a license that is revokable and
    renewable by processes similar to car licensing.
    
    I don't really want to restate all of this again, so I'm going to go by
    the philosophy of keeping it new and significant.  I am asking again
    why is this so unreasonable?  And if I start to read another response
    saying "what would you do if..." I'll ignore it.  Hypothetical
    situation questions about scenario's about which I could not know
    until I live through one are of no interest to me.  I want an answer
    based on logically deriving meaning from the amendment -- why would
    that procedure violate the people's right to keep and bear arms?  after
    going through the registration process, you can keep and bear all the
    arms you want.

    Daniel, one more time, I don't *care* about the militia. I care
    about me, my life. I have a right to defend that life. *That*
    is the right your laws interfere with. The US has rendered the
    militia a moot point by instituting large standing armies, but
    *I* still need the means of *self* defense. Convince me that it 
    is in my best interest to accept infringements of my right to 
    self defense. 
    
    Ever wonder why the concept of *self* defense is *not* mentioned
    in the 2nd Amendment ? Maybe the writers thought it too obvious
    to mention ? And that guaranteeing it would be redundant ?

    re: self defense.  or maybe they considered that self-defense was
    irrelevent in the light of the "common defense"  the constitution is
    not a care based document but a justice based document wherein rights
    are generalized to "the people"  maybe the framers thought the greater
    good outweighed individual concerns?  Please note that our "right to
    privacy" is a myth derived by judges, but at no place in the
    constitution is it ever mentioned.
    
    concerning preventing your self-defense: you'd still get the gun. 
    what's the problem?  I really did ask for a response based upon
    *meaning* not upon, "I'm right - you're worng"
    
    daniel

    
    
    One thing about the auto analogy bothers me. While it is true that the
    auto must be registered to be driven (used) and I must be liscenced to
    operate the auto on a public way, there is no requirement for these
    regulations in order to BUY the auto - all I need is the cash!!!
    
    ed

    RE: .86 Of course your same argument could be used to support literacy
    tests for voters. The courts have found that those violate peoples
    rights. One problem that many of us have with existing gun laws is
    that they are clearly discriminatory. They require that people
    regularly carry large amounts of money for example. This makes it
    very hard for poor people to get permits. Even though for then $10 may
    mean a lot more then $2000 for a rich person.

    Other laws while not designed to be discriminatory are enforced in
    a discriminatory way. In MA women often find it hard to get permits.
    In many places the Chief of Police has no limits on reasons to turn
    a person down. If he doesn't like you, or your gender, or the color
    of your skin...no permit.

    The way I read the 2nd is that people have the right to keep and
    bear arms. Why? Because as the first phrase explains, a well armed
    population is required to ensure freedom. (The militia is all adult
    [male] members of the population. By law "militia" means every man 
    18 to 45.) If you are arguing for a strict interpretation that only
    the militia has the right to bear arms, until ERA passes, women do
    not have that right. You buy that? Not me.

    One other thing that seems clear to me. Even if the amendment does 
    allow for regulation it clearly does not allow for a regulation
    that would prohibit a law abiding citizen from having a gun of
    *any* kind. Nor does it permit a law requiring large fees or other
    restrictions more exacting then voter registration.

    		Alfred

    .87
    
    No one is suggesting taking your guns away from you. Your right to self
    defense is not being infringed by what was said. How many times does
    that need to be repeated here?
    
    D.

Re: <<< Note 83.86 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>
    
>>    NOW...the semantics recognize a need for the people's owning of
>>    firearms to, in some way, constitute a well-regulated militia.  From
>>    this, I derive a governmental responsibility to make certain that
>>    access to firearms is in some way regulated to guarantee that the
>>    private ownership of weapons does not result in anarchy.

So you keep latching onto that 'regulated' word and ignore the "infringe"
word...

So if I proposed a seven day waiting period on public speaking, would that be
infringement of the First Amendment?  If I proposed you couldn't speak out on
certain topics in public would that be infringement of the First Amendment?

What about that simple statement at the end of the amendment "shall not be
infringed?" does that mean nothing?  Or are you claiming that registration,
taxation, and regulation isn't an infringment of a right?
    
>>    I don't understand where you got the impression that it would only
>>    apply to governemnt employees -- could you clear that up?

Good, I guess that you agree that the statement:

>>    "A well-funded government, being necessary to the security of a free
>>    State, the right of the people to earn money from their work, shall not
>>    be infringed"

Does not apply to just government employees.  Now, given that the "the right
of the people" referrs to ordinary citizens, do you think that in the framework
of the above statement that the government, in its goal to become "well-funded"
has the ability to keep people from gettng the jobs they would like to have,
or when they want to have them?  because it clearly states that:

>>    "the right of the people to earn money from their work, shall not
>>    be infringed"

You don't have to be well funded (well regulated), you don't have to be part
of the government and it clearly states "shall not be infringed"

How do you get around the "infringed" word?

                                   Roak

Re: <<< Note 83.86 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>

>>    I've tried to explain my position thoroughly.  It breaks down to:
>>    1) this is the only right with some reason stated attached to it.
>>    2) that reason can be derived to give some regulatory responsibilities
>>    to  the right.
>>    3) I'm not saying ban all guns, but rather have what seems to me to be
>>    a basic process wherin a potential gun operator has to demonstate
>>    competancy, knowledge of the law, not have a past record, continue to
>>    obey laws concerning gun use, have a license that is revokable and
>>    renewable by processes similar to car licensing.
    
>>    I don't really want to restate all of this again, so I'm going to go by
>>    the philosophy of keeping it new and significant.  I am asking again
>>    why is this so unreasonable?

I guess you'll have to ask if the same limitations would be "reasonable" if
applied to the First Amendment, because both the First and the Second are made
of the same stuff.  If it's OK to infringe on one, it's OK to infringe on the
other.

In a purely hypothetical environment, registration isn't a problem, however,
there are two groups that ask for controls.  There are those that are purely
pro-control and then there are those that are anti-gun.  Both work in concert
to get the controls in place, then the anti-gunners use those controls to
take them away.

You don't want pie-in-the-sky examples?  Ok, how about a firearm registration
system that has been in place since 1934.  It requires a three month background
check/de-facto waiting period, and a $200 fee to transfer a firearm.  How many
crimes had been committed using legally-owned firearms of this type up to 1986?
Zero.  Nada.  Nothing.  A perfect record.

In 1986 they were banned.  Why?  They had a *perfect* record!  So much for
trusting the anti-gunners.

You think this is proof that registration works?  Reread what I said.
Carefully:

>>                                                                      How many
>>crimes had been committed by *LEGALLY-OWNED* firearms of this type up to 1986?
                               ---------------

But illegally owned firearms of these types are used in crimes quite frequently.
The last use I can think of that got national attention was that "hit" at the
gang members funeral last week.  And the use of this type of firearm is on the
rise.

The NRA even worked with the Government in 1934 *for* the law.  And what did it
buy the law-abiding gun owner?  An added $200 cost to the firearm and the
banning of them in 1986.  Boy, that was real nice compromise on our part, wasn't
it?

Even with over 55 years of strict controls on these firearms, their use is on
the rise!  The criminals can get them easily!  So tell me again how registration
and a waiting period is going to cut crime.  Again, it won't because the only
people that are going to abide by those laws are the law abiding.

Now perhaps you know why the pro-gunners are so hard to budge.  We've given and
given and given and people still want more.  They call it "compromise" when
it's really blackmail (seven-day wait or we'll ban them all -- c'mon,
compromise).

*History* has now taught us that registration doesn't work.  Not pie-in-the-sky
examples or analogies, but history.  We will not allow our right to be further
infringed.  we've tried to appease people and it was for nothing.  They keep
coming back for more.

>>                                                                why would
>>    that procedure violate the people's right to keep and bear arms?  after
>>    going through the registration process, you can keep and bear all the
>>    arms you want.

I hope I gave you the answer.  We had registration on a particular type of
firearm and they're now banned.  The registration process that was in place (it
was *only* registration) was necessary to implement the ban.  I hope you can now
understand why we don't want any more registration.  If a registration scheme
under which no legally owned firearms was *ever* misused can be used to
implement a ban, what's ahead?

                              Roak

A registered firearm keeps you from comitting a crime like a driver's licence
keeps you from speeding.

    RE .92 I realize no-one is talking about 'taking my guns away'.
    I'm more interested in the case where a person doesn't yet have
    a gun but perceives the immediate need for one. Having to take
    tests and wait most certainly infringes on their right. Possibly
    with fatal results. 
    
    In some States, one need only show proof of residence to purchase
    a hundgun. In others, one must obtain a permit or license. Elsewhere,
    it is virtually impossible to obtain the necessary license. As I
    said before, when one needs a gun, the need is immediate. If I
    felt threatened, and couldn't legally obtain a gun immediately, I 
    would have two choices - pray, or buy a gun illegally. 
    I'm an atheist. The 'waiting period' and 'competency tests' have
    just made *me* a criminal for excersizing my rights.
    
    Dana

    
    By way of comparison, does anyone know what the gun situation is in
    England? My understanding is that few people have them, not even the 
    police.
    
    Just wondering how they manage to get along,
    
    Dorian

    re: .93-.94
    
    One of the reasons that gun control on state and local levels doesn't
    work very well to control gun-related crimes is because there isn't
    uniform gun control regulation.  Criminals get the weapons easily by
    going to states where there are practically no gun control laws and
    bringing them across the border. Street gangs in Boston and Georgia pay
    people to get them weapons from Georgia (recent NPR report)
    
    Uniform regulation procedures for acquiring weapons could severly limit
    that.
    
    How do I get around the word "infringe"?  Easily.  I'm not ignoring it. 
    I'm not even remotely suggesting that you shouldn't be able to get a
    hold of whatever weapons you want -- after going through a careful
    licensing procedure.  I don't think it should cost any more than car
    registration; that $200 fee was ridiculous and prohibitive, I agree. 
    However, a uniform licensing process would only mean having to prove
    that you are competant with the weapon and knowledgable of the law.
    
    The second amendment, as worded, gives the citizens the right to keep
    and bear arms, yes indeed.  However, it also gives the government the
    *responsibility* to make certain that this does not lead to chaos.  
    
    So -- I'm reading *both* halves of the amendment.  I don't have to "get
    around" the word infringe because if you are a law-abiding citizen as
    you say, you will still get to keep and bear your arms without
    infringement.  I really get the impression that you're engaging in a
    very slective reading of what I say.  Case in point, Eagle's reply made
    it sound like I thought only the "militia" should bear arms when I had
    clearly stated that the amendment defined a "militia" of private
    citizens keeping arms.
    
    I'm not going to take your guns away.  I'm not planning on making it
    impossible for you to get them. The first amendment hypothetical is
    irrelevant,IMO, because the wording places no regulatory qualifications
    upon the right.  Interesting hypothetical, but not relevant.
    What I am proposing is a little, IMHO, common sense regarding the handling 
    of tools that are not only potentially lethal but which were designed 
    specifically to be lethal.
    
    England, by the way, gets along with a few complications...they kill
    each other at football matches.
    
    
    daniel

    ho-hum. I didn't say it "would" I said it "could" Please read before
    saying that I'm being simplistic.
    
    ~--D--~ Poets wish people would read what was really said instead of
    	    what people want to *think* was said.

    re .97 and .99 Have to disagree. There are millions of weapons out
    there. Your proposal would only affect legal purchases of guns
    by law-abiding citizens. There are millions of guns on the 'black
    market', millions of war souvenirs, millions of guns manufactured
    prior to mandatory record-keeping. The criminals don't buy their
    guns at Joe's Sporting Goods or K-Mart. They get them from other
    criminals, who deal in stuff like cocaine and crack. (Selling guns
    to your customers is good business sense to a coke-dealer - it 
    ensures repeat business.)
    
    Any criminal, or more specifically, one who has already been convicted
    of a felony and done time, is *automatically* committing a crime when
    he purchases a gun from *any* source. Does it stop them ? Hardly.
    So how is mandatory licensing going to stop them ? And you still
    haven't adressed the problem of those who have felony charges plea-
    bargained to misdemeanors. No record, no problem. 

    Mark and Dana,
    
    Do you realize that you have both implied that training is entirely
    unimportant in handling a gun effectively?
    
    						Ann B.

    .101
    
    Both Mark and Dana are supportive of training.  Both gave me positive
    responses to my note offering a Firearm safety course - which certain
    members of this conference bashed to death!
    
    More and more women are becoming interested in firearms for lawful
    purposes, but get put off by :
    
    a.  an insecure spouse
    b.  other family members
    c.  well meaning neighbors who listen to "THE NEWS"
    d.  the local rapist (who could be the insecure spouse, a family
        member, or a neighbor)
    
     
    
                   Carol

    so why can't there be a law requiring the kind of familiarity before
    owning and operating?

    .104
    
      You certainly want a great deal of laws - regarding firearm
    ownership!  Learning to operate a firearm, in one's possession, is
    common sense, or it's useless.
    
      I personally believe we have enough laws and investigations here
    in MA.   AND ...the current laws/regulations continue to be abused by
    various Police Chiefs around this State.  (i.e., "I don't want a bunch
    of women in my town running around with guns")
    
      Getting licensed, these days, is like trying to win the Lottery
    without a ticket.  Now you want people to wait (for who knows how long)
    for another background check whenever they purchase a firearm.
    
      As previously stated by others, it will not deter a crime. SO,
    why do you insist on making my/our life miserable?  What did we,
    lawful citizens ever do to you?
    
      I am so tired of people wanting this, and that, when it comes to my
    personal possessions that I have worked for - it's over whelming?
    
    What is it you WANT?
    
      I was also distressed to find out in CANINE notes (Jul 20, 1990) that
    a County in MI is banning certain breeds of dogs.  The Doberman, Pitt
    Bull, German Shepherd, and Rottweiler.  I remember when people 
    would comment to me "O' just go get a dog for protection".
    
    What else would you like?
    
                     Carol

    >so why can't there be a law...
    
    So why *must* there be a law ? We have a fundamental difference.
    I see people as inherently sensible and trustworthy, you appear
    not to. 'Innocent until proven guilty' can be paraphrased as
    'sensible until proven otherwise'.

    re: .105, .106
    
    because the same way you couldn't guarantee that everyone who got
    behind the wheel of a car knew how to operate it without a driver's
    test, you cannot guaratee that everyone who purchases a firearm would
    know how to use it without requiring an operating test before purchase
    and operation.
    
    of course, it would not be 100% effective, but it is certainly a goood
    start. and, yes, I believe that you are responsible gun-owners who knew
    how to fire before buying, but don't you think it is foolish to assume
    that everyone has your level of common sense concerning guns?
    
    some things are so potentially dangerous that they call for some
    minimal level of government regulation.  the past decade of Reagan/Bush
    deregulation of industry has been disasterous -- because common sense
    things like not giving S&L loans to people with no assets did not
    occur.
    
    it amazes me as well, to witness how some folks have read my responses. 
    I'm not talking about using current gun control measures which may be
    inefficient and/or discrimanatory.  I'm talking about a sensible,
    relatively easy testing and licensing procedure before operation of
    weapons of deadly force. it doesn't infringe upon your rights to bear
    arms...it simply requires a little more effort.
    
    what I really seem to be hearing is an implied resentment at the
    government knowing who knows how to operate and who has weapons...is
    that really it? you don't want people to know what weapons you have?
    
    daniel

    Think of the testing as enforcing the "well-regulated" portion
    of the Second Amendment -- and thereby subsuming the "militia"
    part of it.  ;-)
    
    						Ann B.

Re: <<< Note 83.97 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>
    
>>    One of the reasons that gun control on state and local levels doesn't
>>    work very well to control gun-related crimes is because there isn't
>>    uniform gun control regulation.  Criminals get the weapons easily by
>>    going to states where there are practically no gun control laws and
>>    bringing them across the border. Street gangs in Boston and Georgia pay
>>    people to get them weapons from Georgia (recent NPR report)

That law I referrd to in .94 that has been on the books requiring registration,
background check, de-facto waiting period is a *Federal* law.  So much fo the
"other states" argument, eh?

Again, here we have a gun-controllers dream law, and the guns are still being
used in crimes.  So much for the registration idea...

As for buying them in Georgia and bringing them into Boston, even with the
registration and background check, a straw man can buy them in Georgia and then
sell them (illegally) to people from Boston.  Heck, if you're willing to murder
someone, what's a firearms violation?  Again, these laws effect only the law
abiding.
    
>>    Uniform regulation procedures for acquiring weapons could severly limit
>>    that.

Uniform regulations (read: Federal) for 55 years hasn't stopped misuse of
firearms.  That's history.  No amount of shuffling and "wouldn't it be nice"
wishful thinking changes that evidence.  55 Years of Federal control didn't
stop the misuse of some firearms -- do you have some new unique approach that
hasn't been tried or is it more of the same ideas that have failed in the past?
    
>>    How do I get around the word "infringe"?  Easily.  I'm not ignoring it. 
>>    I'm not even remotely suggesting that you shouldn't be able to get a
>>    hold of whatever weapons you want -- after going through a careful
>>    licensing procedure.  I don't think it should cost any more than car
>>    registration; that $200 fee was ridiculous and prohibitive, I agree. 
>>    However, a uniform licensing process would only mean having to prove
>>    that you are competant with the weapon and knowledgable of the law.

Couild I assume then that a careful licencing procedure (that costs some
undetermined amount) before speaking in public would not infringe on your
right to free speach?  Do you feel that that would be acceptable?
    
>>    The second amendment, as worded, gives the citizens the right to keep
>>    and bear arms, yes indeed.  However, it also gives the government the
>>    *responsibility* to make certain that this does not lead to chaos.

Seems there wasn't any chaos before 1934 when the National Firearms Act was
passed, why do you conclude that there would be chaos now?  History again shows
that what you fear would not happen.
    
Another lost concept -- the Bill or Rights does not *grant* rights to the people
it *withholds* powers from the government.  What kind of right would be "The
governenment cannot infringe on X but it can regulate it."  Somewhat of a
impossibility given the definitions of "regulate" and "infringe", isn't it? 
That's why it is clear that the first part of the Second is a reason, not a
restriction.

>>    So -- I'm reading *both* halves of the amendment.  I don't have to "get
>>    around" the word infringe because if you are a law-abiding citizen as
>>    you say, you will still get to keep and bear your arms without
>>    infringement.  

"You have nothing to fear if you do not have skeletons in your closet" --
Welcome to the McCarthyisim of the 90s, folks!  Wow!  Have we slipped that
far?  I guess so, if someone can come up with such a statement!

Excuse me, but I showed in .94 where the gun owners allowed registration and
*still* guns were banned.  You may not want to take my arms away, but the
registration you propose will give the government the tool to ban them; as has
been done in the past.  Give me one reason why what you're proposing is
*guarenteed* to be different (the government won't ban yet another class of
guns) than the track record has shown in the past.

>>    I'm not going to take your guns away.  I'm not planning on making it
>>    impossible for you to get them.

I beleive you, I really do, but what you're trying to put in place someone
else will use to take them away or make them impossible to get them.  It's
been done in the past and will be done again unless we draw the line here.

>>                                        The first amendment hypothetical is
>>    irrelevant,IMO, because the wording places no regulatory qualifications
>>    upon the right.  Interesting hypothetical, but not relevant.

I operate on principal, rather than what I would *like*.  It's a lost concept,
principal; everyone is willing to give up something as long as it does not
effect *them*.  I stand behind the Bill of Rights, even when it allows someone
to do something I don't like, because that's what makes us free.

Free.  A concept that is lost on all but a few people nowadays.

                                  Roak

    A few more points to point:
    
    Maybe someone would mind a firearms violation charge if a murder weapon
    used in Bosrton was purchased on his/her gun operator's license?  Is
    someone very likely to sell guns illegally in Boston if that person
    knew the weapon could be easily traced back to his/her license?
    
    Once again, the examples of literacy tests for voting or waiting
    periods for free speach are cute hypotheticals but totally
    irrelevant...the other amendments are not worded with a modifier clause
    mentioning regulation. Mcarthyism of the 90's? I'm officially insulted
    if that's what you want to do, but I also don't see how demonstrating
    competance with a weapon before operating it is the equvilant of
    applying a political test to people and banning them from certain jobs.
    
    here's a syllogism on past gun registration laws:
    
    Some gun registration laws were used to ban weapons
    This is a gun registration law.
    It will be used to ban weapons.
    
    Essentially, this is your reasoning -- it is also a classic logical
    fallacy, taking a limited statement and transposing it to the
    universal.  If people somehow warp a registration process to ban
    weapons (I'd like to know what *their* reasoning was -- registration
    requirements give no legal ground to ban), then you fight the attempt
    to misuse the law, not the law itself.  If it happens, call me -- I'll
    be there to help because even though I despise firearms in *all* forms,
    people cannot bend a law into doing something other than its purpose
    without expecting a legal knuckle sandwhich from me. 
    
    Someone here just said that we need to respect other people's freedom
    to do things we don't like.  I'm not thrilled at the thought that
    you're implying that I am not doing that -- if that were the case, I'd
    go off into the rathole of banning weapons...the second amendment
    doesn't let me do that.  What I am trying to do is add some sense of
    responsibility to the enactment of that right because the amendment
    itself gives the government not the power to ban weapons, but the
    responsibility to see that they are issued and used in a manner that is
    not detrimental to the common good. The hypotheticals about voting
    and free speach just don't apply because the constitution isn't written
    with modifiers in those cases.
    
    I'm drawing a line that gives you your rights while guaranteeing that
    the government can at least attempt to maintain its responsibilities to
    "promote the common welfare"
    
    daniel

Re: <<< Note 83.112 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>

>>    Maybe someone would mind a firearms violation charge if a murder weapon
>>    used in Bosrton was purchased on his/her gun operator's license?  Is
>>    someone very likely to sell guns illegally in Boston if that person
>>    knew the weapon could be easily traced back to his/her license?

As long as I'm not held responsible if it was stolen or legally sold, no
problem.
    
>>    here's a syllogism on past gun registration laws:
    
>>    Some gun registration laws were used to ban weapons
>>    This is a gun registration law.
>>    It will be used to ban weapons.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?  The 1934 NFA law was a gun-control
dream.  No legally owned firearm was used to commit a crime yet they were
banned.  Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I will have to assume that
other laws would eventually be used to ban firearms.  Don't say "trust me",
prove it!  Time after time, state after state recently the
give-an-inch-take-a-mile attitute proves over and over that once the
pro-controllers get something, the anti-gunners step in and go further.  The
1934 NFA is just one example of many.  Can you give a contrary example? That
would help your position.
    
>>    Essentially, this is your reasoning -- it is also a classic logical
>>    fallacy, taking a limited statement and transposing it to the
>>    universal.  If people somehow warp a registration process to ban
>>    weapons (I'd like to know what *their* reasoning was -- registration
>>    requirements give no legal ground to ban).

You're right, registration gave no legal ground to ban, but they *do* give the
mechanisim to ban and to confiscate, don't they?  After all, if the government
knows where all the legal (note I said "legal") firearms are, they can simply go
out and collect them.  Of cource the criminals who didn't bother to register
them can keep them.

>>                                             ...then you fight the attempt
>>    to misuse the law, not the law itself.

But again, the registration law was not misused, merely a new law was added
"ban the firarms, and use the registration lists, created in 1934, to enforce
the new law passed in 1986."

>>                                        If it happens, call me -- I'll
>>    be there to help because even though I despise firearms in *all* forms,
>>    people cannot bend a law into doing something other than its purpose
>>    without expecting a legal knuckle sandwhich from me.

I said it's been done.  So I'm calling you.  When can the NRA-ILA expect your
check, or was that an empty offer?
    
>>                            What I am trying to do is add some sense of
>>    responsibility to the enactment of that right because the amendment
>>    itself gives the government not the power to ban weapons, but the
>>    responsibility to see that they are issued and used in a manner that is
>>    not detrimental to the common good.

So again, is the NRA-ILA going to receive a check from you?  The Government
BANNED the import of certain firearms last year.  That's BAN, not registration,
not control, it was an outright ban.  S1970 BANS the domestic manufacture of
some firearms.  H4225 BANS non-sporting firearms (firearms used mainly for
self-defense are non-sporting, by the way).  I take it you're on our side on the
fight against these bills?  If so, are you doing something about it?  If not,
why not?  You just said that "the amendment itself gives the government not the
power to ban weapons..."  but that's what they are doing!  And how do they know
where they are?  From registration forms established in 1968.  After all, it's
just "registration".

                               Roak

Legal test:

	Let's say I'm a criminal that is not allowed by law to possess firearms.

	Now, let's say my state, county or city  passes a law that requires
	everyone who owns firearms to register them.

Question:

	Do I have to register my firearms?

	Can I be charged with not registering them?

                          Roak

    No, under precedent established with the tax laws, forcing you to
    register is considered self-incrimination and is therefore disallowed
    under provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

re. Note 83.108  
    SSVAX2::KATZ 

>    what I really seem to be hearing is an implied resentment at the
>    government knowing who knows how to operate and who has weapons...is
>    that really it? you don't want people to know what weapons you have?
    
>    daniel

    Yes. Does that surprise you ? First, 'who has weapons' is nobody's
    business. Second, it sure ain't the *government's* business. See
    Modern History, Lithuania. Now take a good look at HR 4079, the
    proposed law which would _temporarily_ suspend many of our
    Constitutional rights. Add that law to registration and you've
    got all the makings of instant dictatorship. If you think I trust
    George Bush, or *anybody* with that kind of power, you're very
    wrong. 
    
    Dana

    We americans used to feel insufferably smug about our ethical and
    cultural superiority to people such as the germans, who fell for
    Hitler's megalomaniacal dreams.  It could never happen here, we'd
    congratulate ourselves, we're different.  But gradually we've managed
    to compile quite a disturbing amount of evidence both clinical and
    experimental that no, we're not so different after all.  We too are all
    too willing to give away our freedoms and ethical authority to people
    who promise that they know what's best for us and will take care of us. 
    Both liberals and conservatives are willing, it just depends on the
    issue.
    
    						=maggie

Re: <<< Note 83.115 by MOMCAT::TARBET "They call her The Devilish Mary." >>>

>>                         -< But you knew that, Roak. >-

Yup, I did.

>> No, under precedent established with the tax laws, forcing you to
>> register is considered self-incrimination and is therefore disallowed
>> under provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

Exactly.  Therefore one of two things occurs; either only the law abiding
citizens must register their firearms or the otherwise law-abiding citizens
become criminals.  California and Denver's recent "Assault Weapon" ban
(In quotes since the ban has nothing to do with assault weapons) both had
a fractional compliance rate.  An excellent way to legally set up people to
be political prisoners -- make a law that very few will obey, then selectively
enforce it.  All on the excuse that it'll help the drug war -- even though
the very people it is supposed to target *don't* have to register them!

                          Roak

    re .106, Dana:
    
>    I see people as inherently sensible and trustworthy, you appear
>    not to.
    
    I also see a lot of *very* *stupid* people out there, Dana,
    don't you?  I see them driving on Rte. 495 *every* day!  And,
    IMHO, obtaining a gun and not taking any training in how to use
    it is just plain *stuuuuuuuuupid*.  And dangerous to other
    people, as well.
    
    Not a popular position here, but count me among those who would like
    to see required firearms safety for those obtaining a gun for the
    first time.  It only takes a few minutes.
    

My feelings on this are simple.   No one should be allowed to own a gun until
they have demonstrated that they know how to use it.  

 The Doctah (several replies ago) came up with a case against gun law; in that
the woman gets a call from her ex-husband threatening her life.  In his utopian 
society, she would then be able to rush down to the corner "Guns-R-Us" and buy
a weapon with which she could blow away the ex-husband should he show up on the
doorstep.  (I think that's an accurate summary).  My personal belief is that an
untrained person with a loaded gun is probably the most dangerous thing I can
imagine. I suspect that the more likely outcome of the untrained woman blazing 
away at her husband would be a large number of bystanders with bulletholes in
'em.

 As an aside:  I really have a hard time understanding why so many people are
so distrusting of their government. No, I'm not wide-eyed and innocent, but I
had always believed that (at least in a democracy) if you didn't like what the
government was doing, you could vote somebody else into power.  Is the 
"paranoia" about the actions of the US government really an indictment of the 
present political system?  Do you believe that America is still the "Land of The
Free"? Are we all closet Libertarians???  [I'm not shit-disturbing (for once),
and I'm not even sure that this is the right place to ask these questions, but
I'd be happy to listen to peoples opinions (either here or in some more suitable
forum)]


					

My personal position on firearms.  I hate them.  If I could have my 
personal, emotional, non-constitutional way, I'd remove every one of them 
from every place of our society and them melt 'em down into frozen yogurt 
machines or something.  That said, let me reiterate that I know that I 
cannot do that.  I have a lot of respect for the Constitution, despite what 
some folks have tried to imply, and I know that I cannot enforce my 
emotions upon others, and that I have to allow for the private ownership 
of weapons in our country.  Granted.  However, as I hope to point out later 
there is also a reason for gun registration as a form of gun-control, and I 
beleive that gun-control does not have to mean anti-gun, but ratehr, can 
mean pro-general welfare while still allowing people their right own and 
operate firearms.  Registration is not limitation.  It does not 
have to be infringement.

First things first:
           
>I said it's been done.  So I'm calling you.  When can the NRA-ILA expect your
>check, or was that an empty offer?
  
I'm a little resentful at the implication that I'm a hypocrite if I don't
donate to the NRA now.  They have positions with which I have sever 
disageements (most notable is gun registration).  Also, I believe I 
misunderstood your meaning of abusing the registration laws.  I thought
you meant that people took the registration tional* legislation was put 
into place that was used to ban weapons and the registration was used 
to confiscate.  While I agree that the ammendment should stand in the 
way of banning, there are also arguments for extreme cases where 
the citizens right to keep arms stands in the way of the government's 
responsibility to promote the  general welfare.  These two can come 
in conflict and the steady flow of semi-automatic weapons that often 
(not always) end up on the street  shooting cops and other people is 
arguably one such situation.  I'm not endorsing the ban one way or the other.
I'm saying that there is a case for it because our rights in the constitution 
also come with an understanding that the government is pledged 
(by the preamble --  contrary to some, the preamble has *always* been 
considered an contractual part of the document by constitutinal law) 
to promote the general welfare.

That off my chest (but probably not out of the way! :-)  On to the
second:

As I've said before, I read the second ammendment this way:

A need for the common defense being recognized, this defense will be
provided by a well-regulated militia that is comprised of private
citizens keeping and bearing arms.

The term militia here is loose in comparison to our standard view of
militias today, but that leaves a double-edged meaning to the amendment:
1) the people have the right to keep weapons and this may not be infringed
upon 2) the keeping of these weapons may be regulated not to restrict or
limit but to make certain that the keeping of private arms does not
likewise keep the government from its obligation to promote the general
welfare.  That's the two-edged sword -- the government may not infringe on
the right, but the right cannot infringe upon the general welfare.

That's the reasoning...here's the proposal:

To provide for the common defense and maintain the general welfare, the 
Federal Government has the obligation to register licenses for the use
and purchasing of firerarms.  Since the second amendment of the Federal
Constitution guarantees the rights to bear arms, any regualtion of that
right is the responsibility of the Federal Government.  This process
 would superceed all local and state registration requirements to 
install a uniform regulatory procedure to guarantee the people's right
to bear arms and to promote the general welfare.  No state or local law
may superceed this procedure.

step one:  at a certain age (I would need to do research on this...maybe
the age you can handle a gun?), a person may apply for a gun operator's
learner's permit.  To do so, the person must go to the local police and
pass a standard test(could be modified for age considerations to be given
    either verbally or written, to demonstrate a basic knowledge of gun use 
    and laws pertaining to gun use.  Upon satisfactory passage of the test 
    and positive background check, a permit is issued.  The person may now 
    study gun operation under the supervision of a licensed gun operator.

step two: when the permit holder feels competant enough with the weapon,
s/he may go to the local police and take an operator's test.  Upon 
completion, s/he will be issued a license to own/carry firearms (There may 
need to be certain classifications -- I'm not certain if that would be 
necessary) The operator is issued a license and the serial numbers of
guns purchased will be registered under that license number.  These
records will be kept with the state police.  Registration may be 
transferred from state to state upon change of residence. Violation of the
law pertaining to the use of weapons may result in temporary suspension
or, if the situation warrants it, revocation of the license.  These are
appealable.

Points to make about this:

* The problem of guns already out there is difficult, but solvable, I
believe, with some degree of effort.  For example, target ranges may be
places where licensing oeprations could take place.  When you go to 
practice, you may recieve your license.

* Some areas are very remote with only a few people around and no actual 
police force.  Provisions need to be made for these regions.

* Yes, someone may still purchase a gun and sell it illegally, claiming it 
was stolen.  However, in order for illegal sale of guns to take place they 
must be either a) smuggled or b) bought legally first before "stolen"  This 
registration process makes weapons in the second case tracable to a source. 
 if someone shows up with, say, forty weapons that are all reported stolen 
and all of them show up as crime weapons, that may be grounds for a 
criminal investigation.

* This next part is a "hopefully"  With that kind of control of illegal 
weapons, after some time, it may no longer be deemed necessary to restrict 
certain weapons.  Yes, this is acting hopefully, but I do beleive that this 
type of registration, being uniform and traceable, may positively cut down 
on illegal gun purchases.

* Registration is not limitation.  No, I don't have any previous cases 
where a registration was not used to confiscate weapons after a ban.  I 
don't know the case histories to be that certain.  However, if the law is 
effective, uniform and does manage to reduce crime-related gun incidents, 
then there should be no perceived need for a ban.  If one is attempted, 
then it can be fought.  The main thing I see here is a *uniform* 
registration process for the entire country.

This as far as I have thought it out so far.  Looking back at my past 
replies, I think that I have acknowledged many of your good points and have 
adjusted my views accordingly.  I don't like being told that I'm not 
respecting the amendment when I'm trying to read it in its full context and 
understanding certain governmental obligations to the people in general.  If 
you are of the mind that the government can't know anything about what 
weapons are out there, then you obviously disagree with everything I've 
said and I know that.  If you think that this makes sense and is what the 
NRA wants, etc, but don't think it will ever happen so we shouldn't try it, 
I'm sorry, I guess I feel that it's worth the fight. If you don't trust the 
government to not use this to confiscate weapons, I'd recommend helping to 
make a process like this work to actually reduce crime and convince the 
general population that elects the government that the ban is not necessary
, that the general welfare is not being damaged by the bearing of such arms.  
(I beleive the latest pools showed 70% of the people favoring limitations 
on semi-automatic weapons -- if the crime use were reduced, this perception 
could change.  Again, let me state that there is a two-edge sword here of 
the people's rights to bear arms and the general welfare of the population.
..right now, they sometimes come in conflict.

That's all that I think I can say.  I've done a lot to meet the other 
side's concerns -- I would like to think they could do the same for some of 
mine.

daniel     

    I'd never thought about requiring training before being allowed to
    purchase a firearm.  There is precedence in that other types of
    machines requiring proof of proficiency (however slight) before being
    allowed to operate them: cars, motorcycles, planes, and (I think),
    boats.  Guns are just as dangerous, for different reasons, as these.
    
    Requiring proof of training would slow down people getting firearms
    and, just maybe, prevent the impetuous crazed maniac from going out and
    buying one and shooting everyone in sight.  It might also give more
    rational people the chance enough extra information to help prevent the
    unfortunate accidents involving guns lying around the house or
    accidents due to bad maintanence etc.  Not that I think the majority of
    gun problems are the result of this or that these measures would
    completely prevent it.
    
    If training were put down as the requirement, maybe with similar
    medical restrictions as are involved with drivers licences, problems
    like the ones Nancy ran into with the police not wanting to give her a
    license wouldn't be able to happen any more.
    
    Jim

    re: .121  daniel
    
    I agree with you 100%!  Well put!
    
    Pam

    RE .121 That 'general welfare' clause is too easily invoked
    when someone wants to violate the individual welfare of a
    private citizen. The general welfare is an abstract, the welfare
    of the individual is concrete. The general welfare cannot be
    served by violating the rights of individuals, because the general
    welfare is only the *sum* of the welfare of individuals. 
    
    You maintain that the general welfare makes it necessary to give
    our government the tools they would need to violate the rights
    of individuals (gun registration.) I maintain that the general
    welfare is best served by keeping the government so small and
    limited that it *can not* violate the rights of any citizen.
    
    Put another way, I *don't* put the general welfare ahead of my
    own. You can't add your rights, her rights, his rights, and come
    up with the right to violate *my* rights. 
    
    Dana
    

Re: <<< Note 83.121 by SSVAX2::KATZ "What's your damage?" >>>
           
>>             While I agree that the ammendment should stand in the 
>>way of banning, there are also arguments for extreme cases where 
>>the citizens right to keep arms stands in the way of the government's 
>>responsibility to promote the  general welfare.  These two can come 
>>in conflict and the steady flow of semi-automatic weapons that often 
>>(not always) end up on the street  shooting cops and other people is 
>>arguably one such situation.  I'm not endorsing the ban one way or the other.
>>I'm saying that there is a case for it because our rights in the constitution 
>>also come with an understanding that the government is pledged 
>>(by the preamble --  contrary to some, the preamble has *always* been 
>>considered an contractual part of the document by constitutinal law) 
>>to promote the general welfare.

So you think the Government can do *anything* in the name of "the general
welfare."  Well, that's very mych in sync with the way the government is
thinking these days; too bad you don't realize how much trouble we're in
bacause of that...

Anyway, onward...

So, you think the amendment should stand in the way of banning firearms. *BUT*
you think there may be "extreme cases" where some should be banned.  Damn the
Amendment, we've got to *do* something.  A quote from a California Senator last
year (on record) during the "Assault Rifle" frenzy sums up your thinking:

	"To Hell with the Constitution, we've got to do something!"

God, that sent chills down my spine.  And he's still in office, which sends even
more chills down my spine.  He's still in office because the people he
represents think that's OK because they think we *do* need to do something,
even if it's unconstitutional; that sends the most chills down my spine.  The
United States is no longer a Republic, it is a Democracy.

And you were telling us that all you wanted was registration.  After they're
all registered, and someone convinces you that such-and-such a firearm is
an "extreme case" you may agree.  And you'd support using the lists that were
"only registration" to confiscate (after a minor addition of a law to outlaw
them).

Thank you, Daniel.  I knew those were your true colors, I just wanted you
to come out in the open on your own.  I think that further discussion with
you on "gun control" would serve no further purpose, becuse if you think that
there's a case for banning one type of firearm, you can use that logic to
ban them all.  You proposals are moot as well, because of your willingness
to allow "some" firearms to be banned.  What would I gain by implementing
your proposals?  More restrictions and *still* you may want to come back and
ban some firearms.  Wow, what a great proposal!  Mind if I pass on it?

I revise my assessment, despite your "defense" of the Second Amendment, you're
not pro-control, you're anti-gun.  Your emotional fear of firearms gets in the
way of analytical thinking.

Implement restrictions that effect the criminals and not the law-abiding and
I'll talk.  Until then you're targeting the wrong people.  It's been a nice,
but predictable, debate.  I've been through a hundred just like it before.

                              Roak

Re: <<< Note 83.124 by HEFTY::CHARBONND "in the dark the innocent can't see" >>>
    
>>    Put another way, I *don't* put the general welfare ahead of my
>>    own. You can't add your rights, her rights, his rights, and come
>>    up with the right to violate *my* rights.

I always liked the example of a Democracy (which the US has/is becoming) vs.
a Republic (which is what it used to be):

In a Democracy, 51 Cannibals can vote to eat the other 49.

In a Republic where there is a right to life, 99 Cannibals cannot vote to eat
the 1.

Now look at the title to this reply...

                              Roak

>I always liked the example of a Democracy (which the US has/is becoming) vs.
>a Republic (which is what it used to be):
>
>In a Democracy, 51 Cannibals can vote to eat the other 49.
>
>In a Republic where there is a right to life, 99 Cannibals cannot vote to eat
>the 1.
    
    The difference between a democracy and a republic has nothing to do
    with the method of voting.  A democracy just means government by the
    people or their representatives (the latter being a representative
    democracy, which is what most democracies, including the US, are).
    
    A republic means that sovereignty lies with the people.
    
    These two concepts are orthogonal to one another (the US is both a
    democracy and a republic, the UK is a democracy but not a republic,
    the soviet union is a republic but not a democracy).
    
    How voting is done is completely separate from either of these
    concepts;  democracy doesn't necessarily mean tyranny of the majority. 
    That's what things like the single transferable vote and similar
    proportional representation schemes are all about.
    
    John

    First, I'd like to thank Nigel (.120) and Jim (.122) for understanding
    my point.  It really does take training -- and paying attention to
    the training -- to hit a target.  I've watched in amazement as
    boys [sic] missed their targets entirely, despite having fired
    hundreds of rounds previously, and as men (of no known training)
    missed their LARGE targets at point-blank range.  (One must also
    have the temperament/motivation to hit that particular target.)    

    Mark,

    After I had stressed in .84 the difficulty of *successfully* using a
    gun on the first day/try, you wrote in .85, "So perhaps only in 50%
    of the cases she will be able to use the gun effectively enough to
    thwart the attack."  This says -- and as I indicated in .101 you may
    not have been aware of this implication -- that you believe that
    a raw beginner can "thwart" a armed attack half the time.  This is
    a way of saying that training is unimportant, whether you realize
    it or not.

    Dana, by writing in .95 that "when one needs a gun, the need is
    immediate." is saying the same thing:  To have the gun means to
    be effective with the gun.

    Yes, of course you know that you need to be trained to aim, to
    squeeze the trigger, to breathe properly before you can hit where
    you're aiming!  You just instantly discounted it when it came to
    the heat of the argument.  Don't do that.

    Stick with legitimate claims:  Registration of gun ownership is
    a bad idea (because bureaucracies and especially force-oriented
    bureaucracies love to push their weight around).  Limitation of
    ownership through expensive or arbitrary procedures is wrong.
    The Second Amendment does guarantee its right to individuals,
    qua individuals.  Et cetera.

    						Ann B.

Re: <<< Note 83.127 by ULTRA::WRAY "John Wray, Secure Systems Development" >>>
    
>>    The difference between a democracy and a republic has nothing to do
>>    with the method of voting.

I'm not claiming that there is; a Democracy is simple majority rule.  51
cannibals can voe to eat the other 49.  A Republic is where "...members are
regarded as having a certain equality..."  Which I read as having certain
inailable rights.

We can nitpick over the definitions, but I hope the message is clear: Without
individual rights, a simple majority can be a dangerous thing to base laws
on...

>>           democracy doesn't necessarily mean tyranny of the majority.

But it certainly doesn't disallow it either, does it?

                             Roak

	Mostly I'm playing devil's advocate.  These are hardly exhaustive lists.

Reasons for registration:

o  Sourcing of weapons used in the commission of a crime.  If the weapon has
   been reported stolen, and it shows up in someone else's hands, that's
   one more (albeit, possibly small) charge to add to the list.  If the
   weapon was not reported as lost or stolen, the owner should have some
   questions to answer.

o  Recall for defects. (Never ceases to amaze me when I got recall notices
   for a car for which I am at least the third owner...)

o  Tactical planning when faced with a "situation".


Reasons against:

o  Can be misused for any number of purposes.

o  "confiscation" list if classes of weapons are banned.

o  Privacy issues.


							--D

    So Kent State wouldn't have happened if the student victims had been
    carrying guns?
    
    Ray

    Kent State would have been less likely in the absense of a 'standing
    army'.
    
    What's your point ?

    RE: .135
    
    I don't know if four students would have been killed at Kent State if
    the protestors had been carrying guns. Considering that the students at
    Kent State had the ability to be armed but chose not to be says
    something. Who knows what may have happened had the students been
    armed?  No "what if" scenario can be proven correct. 
    
    I do know that the right to bear arms also means that you have the
    right to NOT bear arms. In other words, guns in the hands of private
    citizens is NOT the end of peaceful protest, nonviolet demonstration,
    or sitins. 
    
    I am shaken by what I see developing in the gun debate.  US the
    good non-violent people against THEM, those big-bellied, nasty redneecks
    who wear big belt buckles and belong to the NRA.  I refuse to align
    myself with the politics of division.  I refuse to take away rights
    from lawabiding citizens because I don't like them.  Us VS Them
    is the first chilling sign of a right erroding for everyone.
    
    I may choose not to own a gun but I sure as hell want the choice. I do
    believe I may apply for a license just to see what happens. 

    My point is that having guns doesn't protect you from government
    repression if the government has more guns.  It just gives the
    government more of an excuse to kill you.  (Black Panthers, anyone?)
    
    And don't get all worried.  I'm not interested in taking away anyone's
    guns.  I just think the argument that they protect you against the
    government is highly overrated.  Cops will always have a lot more
    freedom to shoot you than you have to shoot cops.
    
    Ray

    re .138 Au contraire, Ray, the circumstances under which a
    trained policeman may shoot are far more rigorously defined and
    limited than those for civilians. Greater training/profficiency 
    equals greater standard of restraint in court. 

    .137  thank you, thank you, thank you!  that is what it IS about.
    
                  Carol

Re: <<< Note 83.137 by SPCTRM::RUSSELL >>>

>>                      ...against THEM, those big-bellied, nasty redneecks
>>    who wear big belt buckles and belong to the NRA.

Just as an FYI, I'm maybe about 10 pounds overweight, but hardly big-bellied, I
have medium length hair that keeps my neck from becoming sunburned, I'm an
engineer (who wears blue jeans with a narrow cloth belt with the smallest belt
buckle possible) and I like SCUBA diving and photography.  I'm also an NRA life
member.  I'm far more typical of an NRA member than the media ever shows or
would like to admit.

                           Roak -- I'm the NRA

    .141  well I'm a fashionable woman of 40ish, with long dark hair.
    
     and the cameras at the State House (MA)., stayed clear away from me.
    
          also a member of the NRA
    
                   Carol

    re,.137 The students at Kent State did indeed have the right to
    be armed. Now, due mainly to that tragic incident, it is against
    federal law to carry a firearm on a college campus. (Exception-
    police.) The school I attend evenings has a sprawling campus, with
    areas of forest everywhere, parking far from the buildings. Just
    the sort of place where one might feel safer armed than not. But...

    If you guys actually believe that you can kill a policeman or a member
    of the National Guard (after a warning shot, maybe?) and get off with a
    "suspension", you're living in a different reality than I do.  (Well,
    it IS New England, after all...  (: >,)
    
    I can tell you that things don't work like that in Kansas City, St.
    Louis, Philadelphia, New York, or Boston.  Possession of a deadly
    weapon by the corpse means that the men in blue/khaki/whatever don't
    have to justify themselves as much. 
    
    In a grisly kind of way, I do like the "Shootout at the Kent State
    Corral" idea, though...  "Sergeant, they've got guns!  We'd better
    let them go to class!"
    
    Ray

    I don't think the question of Kent State is a rathole at all. If the
    reason given for personal gun ownership "that it keeps the government
    from getting out of control" is true, then "what would have happened"
    is a valid question.

    I agree with Ray, had the students been armed they would have been
    gunned down. Not just 4 students, but the entire group. In fact, I
    can't think of a scenerio when brandishing a firearm at a policeman
    would not be illegal. It wouldn't matter that you were protesting as is
    your right.

    Perhaps personal use weapons would work in an urban guerilla war. But
    even then the government has the edge. They could turn off your water,
    elecricity, gas and food supply.

    I have rethought my position on gun control to where I would no longer
    vote for it on the grounds of personal freedoom and the prescedent it
    might set. (and I'm not just saying this so I'll get laid by the NRA)
    I don't really buy many of the other arguments. And as for being
    registered, we're on the verge of national ID cards anyway. liesl

          re: .137  (Margaret Russell)   -< US vs THEM >-

          > I may choose not to own a gun but I sure as hell want the 
          > choice. I do believe I may apply for a license just to see  
          > what happens.

          Oh Margaret, please do!!!

          I don't care if you ever touch a gun  {which doesn't mean I
          wouldn't see if you wanted to go plinking with me on occasion :-}
          , but I'd be very interested to see what kind of a reception you
          get from Mr. Town Police Chief in response to your request for a
          license.

          The only town police chief I've heard of that doesn't mind giving
          permits to women for protection is AYER's.  The rest probably
          think we'll get mad at our SO's and shoot them.  The line I got
          was "We don't want this town turning into a Dodge City." ...
          which didn't explain why a consultant I worked with who lives in
          the same town was able to obtain a license for protection.  Then
          again, he is a white, male, homeowner.

          Other women's anecdotal incidents I've heard about from towns in
          the Greater Maynard Area:

          chief: "We don't give permits to broads in this town."
          chief: "Your husband has a permit... do you really think you need
                  one?"
          woman: "They gave me a permit when they found out who my dad
                  was."

          Also, Margaret, if you've ever been attacked, I wouldn't admit it
          to the person who questions you.  I was stupid enough
          (intimidated enough...?) to be honest about it when I was
          questioned, and the response was something about them not liking
          to give permits to persons with a "history of violence".

          I've also heard that women who... basically, "kiss a*s" are more
          successful in getting permits than those who don't.  In other
          words, you can play up to their sense of the big strong man
          wanting to protect the fragile nymph... bat your eyelashes and
          stuff...

          (I'll be back from Andover Monday if you want to talk more about
          it).

                                         nancy b.
             (certified handgun & rifle instructor who can't get a license)



    I had occasion to apply for a FID in Westford, Mass, once, and got no
    hassle.

    RE: .148

          >The only town police chief I've heard of that doesn't mind giving
	  >permits to women for protection is AYER's.  The rest probably
          >think we'll get mad at our SO's and shoot them.  

    Naw, even in a hormonally-induced berserk rage I'd still be sensible
    enough to torture Jim slowly rather than shoot him.   :^)

    I think he's safe.  (Anyway, who would hurt a guy who ALWAYS puts the
    seat down?)

       Margaret

    PS:  I am thinking of going to the police station to inquire about a
    license on Saturday.  Coincidentally, I have a hairdresser appt. on
    Saturday morning.  Won't have to actively vamp, my hair will do it for
    me.   :^)

    Sigh....The stuff I do for radical action.

    What we've got a lot of is confusion on what the role of this
    mysterious entity called "The State" ought to be.  I've been talking to
    my sister who just recently finished her course in Contitutional law at
    Columbia Law School with flying colors, so here are some insights:
    
    * In the preamble, which is regarded as the guiding spirit of the
    Constitution, the framers said that they were writing this document to,
    among other things, "promote the general welfare"  This is an extremely
    utilitarian view of a federal government.
    
    * In the Bill of Rights, there is a listing of personal, individual
    freedoms upon which the government cannot infringe.  This is an
    extremely Libertarian view of government.
    
    * The two philosophies are quite opposite in their views of how a
    government should work -- the extremes of either are generally regarded
    as not desirable.  Utilitarianism squashes the indepedency out of a
    people and tends to leave them unprepared to resist tyranny. 
    Libertarianism tends to lead to institutionalized selfishness and can
    be down-right nasty.
    
    * In a recent article entitled "Deconstructing the Constitution" the
    premise is suggested that the framers were totally aware of this
    conflict of interest.  What is more so, they left it in deliberately
    because they felt that the extreme cases of either philosophy would be
    detrimental to the country.  This gives a head ache when deciding which
    way to go, but the philosophy of compromise is considered to be the
    framers' intent. In other words, when personal liberty is put into
    jeopardy, the common good must bend a little to accomodate.  Similarly,
    when the common good is in jeopardy, individual liberty must bend a
    little.  Neither has to give very much for both to endure, but the idea
    is that you do not totally obliterate one for the sake of the other.
    
    * Over the years, the Court gets cases that are referred to as "Testing
    Grounds" that indicate the current Court's views on interpretting the
    Constitution.  Will it lean more for the common good or more for the
    individual's liberties?  That question is answered again and again in
    testing ground after testing ground, and the conclusion is that the
    Constitution is not static.  The interplay between these two
    philosophies is continually changing the way the Constitution is read,
    and that may fluctuate from case to case. The important thing to
    remember when studying Constitutional law is that no one philosophy has
    absolute dominion over the other...in other words, they have to learn
    to live with each other.
    
    With that in mind, I will stick with my reply in .121.  For the record,
    I did *not* say that I supported those bans, but rather, that I
    understood the argument behind them -- understanding someone's
    viewpoint is usually a good way to try to address their concerns.  I'm
    sorry that it was misread to be the other way, but that's life, isn't
    it?
    
    Daniel_thinking_that_"The State"_has_too_many_problems_of_its_own_to
    _to_bother_with_squashing_me_at_this_time

Re: <<< Note 83.146 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>

>>    I agree with Ray, had the students been armed they would have been
>>    gunned down. Not just 4 students, but the entire group.

Interesting, Lisel, I think that if the students were armed, they would have
not sent in the NG/ROTC in the first place.  After all, until then it was a
peaceful demonstration.

An armed populace keeps the government from acting in too hasty a manner.

Commander 1: "Think we should send in the National Guard?"

Commander 2: "Yhea, let's show these peacenicks what power is..."

vs.

Commander 1: "Think we should send in the National Guard?"

Commander 2: "We should be ready, but I wouldn't show ourselves unless violence
              breaks out because we don't want a shootout on our hands."

                              Roak

Firearms act more of a deterrent than a retaliatory force.

The article below appeared today, July 28th, in the San Francisco
Chronicle on the editorial page.  

=========================================================================

Texas Viewpoint/Thomas Taschinger (Cox News Service)
 
			Women, Fear and Guns
 
Port Arthur, Texas
 
	In an era when gun violence rages like a firestorm and
accidental shootings kill thousands of Americans annually,
is it sheer lunacy to advocate more use of pistols?
 
	Not if they're used by law-abiding women.
 
	Among crime victims, women are especially vulnerable to
rape, robbery and murder at the hands of men who are better-armed, as 
in either biceps or pistols.  It's time to change the nation's laws (where 
necessary) to allow women to carry guns for self-protection in certain 
circumstances.
 
	With background checks that screen out the mentally disturbed or 
those with criminal records - plus instruction on weapons handling and 
shooting - America's women could begin to break the cycle of fear that 
shadows them from preschool to retirement homes.
 
	Across the country, feminists, police officials and politicians are
crying out against the rentless criminal war on women.
 
	Congress is considering tougher penalties for sex crimes and a national
commission to study violence against women.  Model Marla Hanson told a Senate 
committee she has been haunted more by the "stigma of victimization" than 
that ghastly night in 1986 when her face was slashed by a razor.
 
	Iowa rape victim Nancy Ziegenmeyer courageously speaks out against the 
horror of sexual assault.  Newsweek magazine devotes a cover story to the crime
of rape (which happens every six minutes in America).  Even comedian
Joan Rivers has applied for a permit to carry a pistol, no doubt mindful of 
the special dangers that stalk female celebrities.
 
	Although longer prison sentences against sex offenders and 
rape-prevention classes will help protect women, they won't do the job 
completely.  The bottom line is that the average woman has (according to 
one report) 60 percent of the strength of the average man.  Invariably, when
the average man tries to rape or mug the average women, he will prevail
physically unless deterred by bystanders, the police, a lucky kick to
the groin or a snub-nosed .38.
 
	If anything, karate lessons and other self-defense tactics could lull
some women into a false sense of security by making them think they
can physically resist an attacker.  While that might be true for some
hefty women or female black belts, it just isn't realistic to expect a
120- or 130-pound woman to overpower a ruthless, experienced criminal
who might outweigh her by 50 or 60 pounds and choose the moment of
attack.
 
	While only an idiot would try to relegate women to second-class legal
status, it would be equally foolhardy to try to pretend in the eyes of the law
that men and women are victimized equally by crimes such as rape.
 
	Yes, if more women were allowed to carry pistols, there probably would
be even more grief caused by accidental shootings.  But that would have
to be measured by the rapes, assaults and murders prevented by armed,
aware women.  In my view, the trade-off is worth it.
 
	In some states, it's already legal for law-abiding women (and men) to
carry guns under various conditions, such as when traveling.  But even in 
states where carrying a concealed weapon isn't legal, a variety of evidence 
suggests many women have quietly decided to make sure they aren't the next 
victim.
 
	Let's stop making criminals out of these otherwise lawful, non-violent
taxpayers who simply want to get through life without being raped or
brutalized.  Let's give them a fighting chance to defend themselves in the 
manner they deem best.
 
(Thomas Taschinger is editorial page editor of the Port Arthur (Texas) News)	

    
    
    	re: .149 (ultra::thigpen)
    
    	> I had occasion to apply for a FID in Westford, Mass, once, and
    	> got no hassle.
    
    	Hmmm..  I heard that Westford is not an easy place to get a
    	License To Carry for protection.
    
    	An FID is very different from a LTC.  Some of the differences
    	include:  the FID will give you the ability to keep long arms
    	in your house and buy ammunition.  If you want to buy a handgun,
    	take a firearms with a barrel length of ?6? inches (or less) back and
    	forth to the range to practice, carry a handgun for protection,
    	etc, you need a License to Carry.  Another major difference
    	is that your police chief CAN'T deny you a FID if you meet the
    	qualifications in Ch. 140 of the Mass Gun Laws.    With an LTC
    	the chief has total unanswerable power to deny your license.
    
    	If you do manage to get approved for a license, the delay till 
    	you actually get your license these days is about
    	16 WEEKS.
    							nancy b.
    
    	
    	

          re: Daniel and others

               The Supreme Court ruled in June (Minnesota Gov. Rudy
          _Perpich_v._Department_of_Defense) that the National Guard_ is
          not the Constitutional militia, since it is funded by the
          national government and always subject to the President's orders.

               The court noted in _Perpich_ that from the earliest days
          of the nation, and under present law (Sec. 311, Title 10, U.S.
          Code), there is a militia (composed of all other able-bodied
          citizens), _plus_ the National Guard.

               Last Feb. 28, in _Verdugo-Urquidez_ a case which
          had nothing to do with guns, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's
          opinion offhandedly equated "the people" mentioned in the Second
          Amendment to "the people" who are granted the right to peaceably
          assemble by the First Amendment, and "the people" who are
          protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth
          Amendment.



    RE: Nancy
    
    If you read what I've written, I didn't even come close to saying
    that the National Guard was the Constitutional militia.  I said quite
    plainly that that militia consisted of private citizens keeping and
    bearing arms.
    
    RE: .155  I'd like to make an honest request that we not continue 
    to misuse the word "nazi"  It has some very emotional connotations on a 
    specific level -- to call someone, even if you think they are 
    politicians stepping on your rights, a Nazi when s/he is not is, IMHO,
    an inexcusable insult.  Could we please save the word for real Nazis?


    requesting, 

    daniel

To those of you still arguing about Kent State.  Kent State was also
mentioned in the same breadth as the murder (by the police) of the
Black Panthers in Chicago.  They were heavily armed.  Didn't seem to
help much.

john

>              <<< Note 83.160 by VIA::HEFFERNAN "Juggling Fool" >>>
>                          -< try a different example >-

>To those of you still arguing about Kent State.  Kent State was also
>mentioned in the same breadth as the murder (by the police) of the
>Black Panthers in Chicago.  They were heavily armed.  Didn't seem to
>help much.

>john

  Allright, France circa 1942-1944: with some "illegal" weapons that had been 
hidden away by those who felt patriotism was more important than obeying the 
laws the "new" government laid down, the French resistance waged a steady
war with the Germans. By 1943 the German army would post no lone sentries 
or send lone trucks/cars into the countryside. The resistance used home-made 
and then, later, captured ordnance to blow up "government installations".
These might have only been a guard-shack by a railroad or a small police 
station but there were some major actions that damaged the German army, and,
more importantly the German soldier's morale.

No armed minutemen or revolutionary group would stand against the full force 
of today's police/DEA/BATF/FBI/IBM/CIA/ETC. but  a resistance movement
causes one of two results, the Government gives in immediately or they crack 
down harder causing more and more citizens to realize that the king/president/
emporer/whatever is wrong and eventually force the government to give in.

If you doubt the value of resistance/guerilla warfare look at the Philipines
in 1940-45, Vietnam 1950-1975, Norway 1940-44, 

If the Panther's had been unarmed many would be alive to stand trial,
If the Student's at KS had been armed more *might* have died.

BUT in both cases armed guerilla war would have been more effective against
the Government. 

I AM NOT ADVOCATING armed insurection! The presence of privately held weapons 
has always been the guarentee that we didn't need to use them. I am afraid
that is changing. We are in for hard times.

Amos

re:.159  (Daniel Katz)

>    RE: Nancy
>    If you read what I've written, I didn't even come close to saying
>    that the National Guard was the Constitutional militia.  I said quite
>    plainly that that militia consisted of private citizens keeping and
>    bearing arms.

	Daniel, if you read what I've written, I never claimed you
	said that.  In .157 I was merely describing info I looked
	up for you and others (like Witt) who were discussing in 
	this note the Constitution, the 2'nd amendment, and 
	Supreme Court interpretations thereof.  Your reply above 
	sounded defensive, and I don't understand why.
    
	Anyway, what I found most supportive of the RKBA (Right to
	Keep and Bear Arms) was the judicial interpretation of
	"the people" in the 2'nd to mean the same as "the people"
	in the 1'st amendment, the 4'th, etc...

						nancy b.

	re: the discussion of Kent State and Black Panthers

	I don't know enough about those two events to discuss
	them;  can we talk about more recent events as well?

	The headlines of the last year or so demonstrate
	how fearful a gov't is of an armed populace.  When 
	uprisings began in Lithuania, one of Gorbachav's FIRST
	steps was to order all the farmer's, etc., to turn in
	their hunting rifles.  

	Why does the Chinese government keep their population totally 
	disarmed?  I recall reading that civilian gun control was a 
	tool of Noriega as well...   

	If an armed populace is an ineffective measure, why are so
	many dictatorships against it?
	
						nancy b.

    Sorry, Nancy.  I guess I read that as an attempt to tell me something I
    had already ackowledged.  My mistake...i apologize.
    
    I definitely agree that the people mentioned in the 2nd are the general
    population, but as I said in .153, the Constitution itself has a set of
    conflicting philosophies at work..Utilitarian and Libertarian.  The
    point that I've been making is that *neither* philosophy has *absolute*
    dominion in any reading of the Constitution.  They fluctuate from case
    to case even as they reach the Supreme Court.  The governemnt's power
    over our rights is limited but similarly, the power that our rights
    have over the rest of society is limited to a degree.  If neither the
    general welfare nor the individual's rights are willing to compromise,
    then the entire system collapses.
    
    Daniel

>    <<< Note 83.167 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>
>                                  -< re .165 >-

>    would you care to elaborate on why you feel that the citations you gave
>    
>    Lithuania
>    China
>    Noriega (Nicaragua?)
>        
 >   are relevant to a discussion about guns in American society
    

I believe(though I would never attempt to speak *FOR* Nancy) that Nancy was 
saying, and what I was definately trying to impart is;

Privately held arms keep a government in check. when the government gets
out of control and abrogates the rights of the individual those individuals
need to fight back. the various countries I mentioned show that while 
open warfare may (doesn't) not work that actions of a clandestine nature by
those armed citizens does lead to the toppleing of that government.

I believe Nancy's point is that current dictators (just as every past
dictator) realize the power of an armed society and fear it more than any 
other thing.

Amos

    Are the cases so dis-similar ? Remember the quote about history?

    "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Don't let
    superficial differences fool you. Those who advocate the supremacy
    of the group over the individual, the 'good of society' over the
    rights of individuals, take many forms, but their methods
    are always similar. And dis-armament is always one of them.

    Is it merely coincidence that both Nazi Germany and Communist 
    Russia both practice(d) strict gun control ? That peasants have
    been historically forbidden to own the weapons of the ruling 
    classes ? 

If Dana can do it, can I do it too?


    Is it merely coincidence that both Nazi Germany and Communist 
    Russia were run by white men?

	Mez the flip

    re .171 Mez, one does not choose to be white, or male. One
    does choose whether to be an oppressor or a lover of freedom.
    The oppressors in Red China happen to be Chinese. So do the 
    freedom demonstrators. One's political philosophy is a choice.
    

    I have to agree with Herb.  It might be more useful to look at how
    firearms affect societies that are cureently the most ismilar to ours
    rather than to draw comparisons based on the most extreme scale
    examples from the history books.
    
    I don't deny that it could possibly happen here if we aren't careful,
    but hyperbole is not overly useful in a discussin about the role of
    firearms today.
    
    IMO
    
    daniel

    For me, the point of discussing dictatorships and occupying powers, and
    the resistance thereto by an armed populace, is one of two central
    focii in the gun control argument.  (The second focus is the
    individual's right to resist against criminal activity in his/her own
    self defense.)
    
    An armed populace helps to ensure that a government rules by the
    consent of the governed.  That is fundamental to the United States'
    "experiment" in republican democracy.  Private arms are the last line
    of defense in preserving our individual liberties.  When a government
    reaches a point that the in-power leadership refuses to step down when
    an election is lost, or decides that the constitutional liberties
    guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be "set aside"
    in order to further the leadership's agenda, then the only recourse
    that may be available would be through force of arms.  The examples
    cited (France, Sweden, VietNam, Phillipines) are ones where that last
    line was reached.  That is their relevance to the discussion.
    
    No one wants to believe that it is possible here.  It is only a little
    short of miraculous that the quadrennial election/change of government
    that we have goes so smoothly.  It is certainly easier to expect that
    our leaders know best, and follow their requests in the belief that
    everything will be all right at the end.  But historically, complacency
    and appeasement usually don't result in continuing freedom, whether in
    the personal or the political sphere.
    
    Alison

	I want to thank Roak for cluing me in to this particular
	debate, although the first thing I am going to do is
	disagree with him regarding Kent State.

	The Ohio National Guard was sent to the KSU campus on
	May 2nd in response to a night of vandalism and minor
	looting in the town of Kent (the "shooting" occured 
	May 4th).

	They were NOT sent to "deal" with the demonstration.

	Had the students been armed, the Governor would have simply 
	sent a larger force (a division instead of a company; 10,000
	troops instead of ~300).

	However, for those that say "It can't happen here", I respond,
	"It already has". Government troops were used to prevent a 
	peaceful (Until the ONG starting tossing teargas) protest 
	demonstration. Luckily, this was an isolated incident and the
	horror at seeing unarmed students killed may have actually 
	prevented further uses of troops for this purpose.

	And for those who may be wondering, yes, I was there.

	Now onto more fertile ground:

	Some have suggested that car registration and driver's licensing
	should lead us to the same actions for firearms. I would LOVE
	to see firearms regulated in EXACTLY the same way as automobiles.

	Remember, you do not need to register or be licensed to operate
	a vehicle on private property. It is ONLY when you venture out
	onto the public thouroughfares that such regulation comes into 
	effect.

	Also please note, the registration fee you pay for your car
	is used to support the infrastructure that your car uses (roads,
	bridges and so on). I would expect firearm registration fees to 
	be used SOLELY for the construction and maintainence of public
	firing ranges.

	This is all "just like cars", right?

	So much for analogies, the actual test of any law is whether or
	not it actually mantains or improves "the health, safety or 
	welfare" of those affected by the law. This is just another
	way to say "for the common good" or "for the common welfare".

	I would submit that so called gun-control laws are a demonstrated	
	failure in this regard. These laws have had NO EFFECT.

	In fact, according to the recently released Uniform Crime Reports
	(crime stats collected by the FBI and published yearly) the only 
	major metro area to see a reduction in murder rates was Miami.
	You should note that Florida's more relaxed gun laws and GREATLY
	relaxed "carry" requirements went into effect at the beginning
	of last year. On the other hand, areas that have severe restictions
	on firearms have seen increases of as much as 75%.

	It seems fairly clear that "gun-control" does not equal crime
	control. So if this is so, why are so many still committed to
	this demonstrated failure?

	BTW, in answer to a very early note. Total murders and non-negligent
	homicides (this includes justifiable killings) for 1989 was 23,500.
	Of these 14,750 involved firearms, 8,930 did not.

	Enjoy.

Jim

    re .179 A fine example of non-argument. "I'm right, you're wrong, 
    so no-one should listen to you anymore."
    
    Herb, please prove *your* contention that events of oppression 
    are *not* relevant to similar events in America. The conflict
    of the individual vs. the group is universal, only the forms differ.
    

 Is it necessary to provide so much fanfare when leaving?

 The Doctah

    re: .177
    
    is it necessary to respond so insultingly to a fairly straightforward
    note?
    
    d

          re: .167 (Herb Nichols)  -< re .165 >-

          >  would you care to elaborate on why you feel that the
          >  citations you gave...  are relevant to a discussion about guns
          >  in American society

               Sure.  I think the examples are relevant because they show
          what can happen when 1) the populace is disarmed by government
          mandate and 2) a dictator comes into power.  As I said before, it
          is clear that within 10 years in America, all private gun
          ownership will be illegal.  In 10 years, I doubt that we will
          have a dictator-like president who will try to pass bills
          enabling the 'temporary' states of emergency and revocation of
          rights of the people in the name of the war on [fill in blank].
          Within 50 years... well, I dunno.  Allison Waskom in .176
          explained what I'm trying to say much better than I ever have.  I
          have a much better understanding (empathy?) for what she
          described as "(The second focus is the individual's right to
          resist against criminal activity in his/her own self defense.)"

                                                       nancy b.

          p.s. Herb, I found it ironic that you have loudly protested when
          people made insulting remarks to each other in =wn= before, and
          yet in .172 you deemed it appropriate to insult me and Dana with:

          > Why don't you just acknowledge that that is a stupid example
          > and go on and talk about something else?      ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

          Thanks, that really made my day.




    assertion .NE. argument

    query: are we rapidly approaching rathole tendencies?  I mean neither
    of the sides making any *new* points...just reasserting the old ones?
    (I'll accept blame for some of that!)
    
    no finger pointing -- just asking.
    
    daniel

	          		<<< LOSER::FIREARMS>>>
================================================================================
Note 1038.740      Media Bias - TV, Newspapers, Magazines, etc        740 of 779
COOKIE::BERENSON "Utopia is not an option"          130 lines  10-JUL-1990 10:43
             -< An example of the media perpetuating a falsehood >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	DECWRL::"megatest!rigel.bbowen@Sun.COM" "Bruce Bowen"  9-JUL-1990 01:51:50.69
To:	firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu, portal!ca-firearms@Sun.COM 
CC:	
Subj:	Uzitruth. 

 
Copied from the Paul Revere BBS (408) 947-7800
 
National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action
1600 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20036
June 1, 1990
 
 
 
J.Harper Wilson, Director
Uniform Crime Reporting Program
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
9th Street and Pennsylvannia Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20535
 
Dear Mr. Wilson:
 
    The May 25th issue of the Los Angeles Times quoted Leonard Supenski
of the Baltimore County Police Department as saying, "We're tired of
passing out flags to the widows of officers killed by drug dealers with
Uzis."
 
     Would you please tell us:
 
     1.   How many law enforcement officers have been killed in the line
of duty since the Uzi was first imported into the United States in 1980?
 
 
     2.   How many of those officers were killed by drug dealers or
suspected drug dealers?
 
     3.   How many of those drug dealers used Uzis?
 
 
     4.   How had those drug dealers acquired their Uzis?
 
 
     Thank you very much for your assistance.
 
                                 Sincerely,
 
                                 Paul H. Blackman Ph.D.
                                 Research Coordinator
 
 
     cc: Edward F. Davis, National Training Representative, UCR
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
                                     U.S. Department of Justice
                                     Federal Bureau of Investigation
                                     Washington D.C. 20535
                                     June 20, 1990
 
 
     Mr. Paul H. Blackman
     Research Coordinator
     National Rifle Association
     Institute for Legislative Action
     1600 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest
     Washington D. C., 20036
 
 
     Dear Mr. Blackman:
 
              The following is in response to your request for
     information regarding law enforcement officers killed in the United
     States.
 
              There were 828 officers feloniously killed in the line of
     duty from 1980 through 1989.  Sixty-six were killed in drug-related
     matters but not necessarily by drug dealers and could have been
     killed by drug users who were high or intoxicated at the time of
     the killing.
 
              One Police of Puerto Rico officer was shot and killed on
     October 13, 1981, by a subject who was intoxicated with marijuana
     and armed with a semi-automatic 9mm Model A Uzi. This was the only
     listing for a law enforcement officer killed with an Uzi.
 
     The Uniform Crime Reporting Program does not capture information on
     how weapons were acquired.
 
                                     Sincerely,
 
 
                                     J. Harper Wilson
                                     Chief
                                     Uniform Crime Reporting Program
 
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA07054; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:52:29 -0700
Received: from sun.Sun.COM (sun-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA07230; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:52:15 PDT
Errors-To: chan@demon.Eng.Sun.COM
Received: from portal.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA13295; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:51:54 PDT
Received: by portal.portal.com (1.29)
	id AA22044; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:29:21 PDT
Errors-To: chan@demon.Eng.Sun.COM
Errors-To: ca-firearms-request@portal.com
Sender: ca-firearms-request@portal.com
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sun!megatest!rigel.bbowen>
Received: by portal.portal.com (1.29)
	id AA22038; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:29:18 PDT
Received: from megatest.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA12022; Mon, 9 Jul 90 00:18:44 PDT
Received: from rigel (rigelx.ARPA) by megatest (4.12/3.14)
	id AA00906; Sun, 8 Jul 90 21:13:42 pdt
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 21:13:42 PDT
From: Bruce Bowen <megatest!rigel.bbowen@Sun.COM>
Message-Id: <9007090413.AA15156@rigel>
Received: by rigel (3.2/3.14)
	id AA15156; Sun, 8 Jul 90 21:13:42 PDT
To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu, portal!ca-firearms@Sun.COM
Subject: Uzitruth.

	From someone who acted on what was presented in the last note:
    
    " An aside:  Since learning that only one police officer was ever killed
      with an UZI, I decided to count the number of times a police officer
      was killed by an UZI on TV this week.  37 times.  I wonder why the mindless
      masses think police are getting mowed down by UZIs...
    
      Government by the media is a dangerous thing. "

    Well, I wouldn't call prime time television the New York Times!
    
    More like the Post... ;-)
    
    It is entirely possible that *both* sides have stuff for which they
    ought to answer isn't it?
    
    d

    re .189 Don't substitute innuendo for argument, please. We've
    *shown* where the pro-control side has distorted the truth.

    Care to show where the NRA has distorted the facts to the
    degree demonstrated ?    

    and I can't tell you how annoying it is to be constantly read as part
    of the "Great Evil Media Conspiracy to Confiscate our Guns and Force Us
    to Listen to Old Shirley Temple Recordings" every time I make a
    comment.
    
    What do I find gun activists answerable for?  Fine.  How about a
    reading of the Constitution that *only* seems to include the
    Libertarian aspect of a multi-faceted document?  Essenstially, that isd
    what I've been reading under notes which comment that *only* the
    individual counts.  That may be a personal opinion byut no Supreme
    Court in history has agreed that the individual has absolute
    soveriegnty over the general population just as the general population
    does not have absolute sovereignty over the individual.  Does the word
    "compromise" mean anything? Maybe it's a hard pill to swallow, but in a
    document with contradictory philosophies at work, can we afford to only
    use one form of interpretation?
    
    The media may have to answer for a skewed reporting which is no better
    and no worse than what I mentioned above.  However, I severely doubt
    the existence of this media "conspiracry" to destroy gun rights. 
    People talk about the positive things done by the NRA, and since NRA
    members are in a better position to know that than I am, I'll accept
    your accounts. However, the news is not about static items...the gun
    clubs, the ranges, the promotion of gun safety among its members.  What
    the public most often sees are the *vocal* activities.  From last
    summer: Mike Yacino of GOAL saying to the press, "We won't campaign
    against this (semi-automatic weapon ban) Our members aren't like
    welfare mothers and have better things to do with their time"  He
    didn't campaign to show how the weapons are "safe" nor did he
    publically advocate measures that would reduce their use in crime which
    was the reason the for the bill in the first place.  70% of the people
    polled in Boston wantred those weapons off the street, and the gun
    activists were not publically doing anything positive to help allay
    fears about innocent people being killed by weapons that the police
    couldn't trace.
    
    Maybe this misrepresents the NRA, but not because of media distortion
    but because of a vocal group within the group.  This happens all the
    time -- causes have often allienated people becasue a vocal minority
    within the cause has spoken in such a negative way that other people
    don't see the reality behind the cause.  Reporters can only report waht
    is visible.
    
    If the NRA feels misrepresented, then why can't it have a public
    outreach campaign?  Vocally advocate responsible gun ownership -- I
    can't remember if I've ever seen an advertisment from the NRA talking
    about its training and instruction activities which are very positive
    acts indeed! 
    
    Now briefly -- about 60 plus responses ago, this whole debate turned
    from a polite exchange of ideas and concerns into a, IMO, a very bitchy
    and mean-spirited fight.  I've tried to explain myself calmly and
    rationally, and I think that I have tried to address other people's
    concerns...maybe not to their satisfaction, but life is like that.  I'm
    really not interested in continuing this unless I feel like I can
    expect an equal level of respect.  I'll just give a pointer to .121 and
    .153 as my position and a further explanation of it, and leave at that.
    
	Daniel (go ahead, flame away...I have on an asbestos wetsuit and
    ear plugs)

    re .192 Daniel, the NRA spent lots of $$ on its "I'm The NRA"
    ads featuring police officers, housewives, actors, target
    shooters, doctors, etc. espousing their enjoyment of safe
    firearms use. These ads appeared in numerous national 
    publications. 
    
    As for the two philosophies in the Constitution, I choose only one
    of them, for *philosophical* reasons outside the scope of this
    discussion. 
    
    Dana
    

      <<< Note 83.192 by SSVAX2::KATZ "Support your right to arm bears" >>>

>I've tried to explain myself calmly and
>    rationally, and I think that I have tried to address other people's
>    concerns...maybe not to their satisfaction, but life is like that.  I'm
>    really not interested in continuing this unless I feel like I can
>    expect an equal level of respect.  

Daniel,

	I too, do not want to get into a mud-slinging contest. Just a simple
	examination of the facts and issues related to this topic.

	It is clear from the evidence that gun-control does not work (defined
	as making society safer). It is also clear that relaxing gun-control
	laws (as in Florida) does not cause an increase in the murder rate,
	in fact in may actually help to reduce it. There are numerous cases
	(as in Orlando) where well publicized efforts to arm and train a 
	particular group (women, in the Orlando example) have resulted in
	dramatic reductions in crimes committed against that group (rape,
	in the Oralndo example).

	It defies logic that any future attempts at gun control will be
	any more successful than those measures that have been tried in the
	past. 

	It bothers me greatly that my wife (or myself for that matter) can
	not legally carry a firearm for her own protection.

	It bothers me greatly that to hear stories of police chiefs that
	will not issue an LTC to women (LTC's are required to even PURCHASE
	a handgun in Massachusetts).

	It bothers me greatly that we continue to discuss new means of
	disarming the proverbial "law-abiding" rather than dealing with
	the root causes of crime. Creating more defensless victims is
	CERTAINLY not the answer.

	An interesting anecdote I'd like to share.

	While attending the public hearings on the Denver "Assault Weapon"
	ban I heard one of the best arguments against such laws. A female
	M.D. came up to the podium and asked the city council the following
	question, "Since you claim that these weapons are the choice of
	drug dealers and gang members, and assuming for a moment that you are
	right, why do you want US to be less well-armed than them?"

	Should the potential victims not have access to the same firearms
	that are ALREADY in the hands of the criminals?

Jim

    re: .195 .196
    
    *Thank you* both.  I appreciate the way you responded.  And eagle, no,
    that doesn't mean I'm not reading and listening...it meant that I
    expected what didn't happen, and I'm glad to be proven wrong on that
    count...I just didn't want to respond to anything that constituted
    mean-spirited.
    
    Jim, Eagle, I hear your concerns and I agree with a lot of them.  I
    don't want to take away people's ability to defend themselves and I
    agree that present and past gun legislation has been ineffective.
    
    That's why I'd like to see a removal of present regualtions and
    restrictions and replace them by a *uniform* licensing and registration
    procedure that wouldn't keep people from bearing arms but would a)
    ensure that people can shoot before purchasing and operating and b)
    would make it possible for police to trace weapons used in crimes ot
    their original purchaser.  Not perfect, most likely, but I think a good
    way to alleviate public concerns. Also, a uniform process would go a
    long way to help stop descrimination against women in the licensing
    process...this is *not* an arbitrary, enforce as you see fit idea, but
    a code to apply equally to all petential gun owners.
    
    About the media -- I just don't see the ghost in the closet but life is
    a matter of perspective.
    
    The major stumbling bloack I see is if you feel the government
    absolutely cannot know where guns are...in that case it *will* have to
    be an agree to disagree...there's that old thing called life again,
    huh?
    
    peace (until Iraq invades Saudi Arabia)
    
    daniel

      <<< Note 83.197 by SSVAX2::KATZ "Support your right to arm bears" >>>

    
>    That's why I'd like to see a removal of present regualtions and
>    restrictions and replace them by a *uniform* licensing and registration
>    procedure that wouldn't keep people from bearing arms but would a)
>    ensure that people can shoot before purchasing and operating and b)
>    would make it possible for police to trace weapons used in crimes ot
>    their original purchaser.  

Daniel,

	I've offered the following compromise in other forums, let me know
	what your reaction is.

	ONE federal gun law that establishes a national FID. This card
	would employ currently available credit card technology for
	verification. After being issued a card, you would be able to
	purchase ANY firearm of your choice, in ANY jurisdiction in
	the country. A "rider" could be put on the card if you wish
	to apply for a license to carry. This rider would be issued
	after passing a competency test (to prevent abuse, the test 
	could be no more stringent than that given to local police
	officers). The "carry" rider would also be valid in any U.S.
	jurisdiction.

	This law would supersede and eliminate any and all local
	gun legislation.

	Under the 2nd and 14th Amendments I beleive that the federal
	government has the authority to pass this type of pre-emptive
	legislation.

	What do you think?

Jim

    wow! number 200! :-)
    
    Jim,
    
    That does sound like a sensible, uniform process.  Yes, I would support
    that without hesitation. Also, the interstate commerce clause could
    give the federal government the ability to supercede state regualtions.
    
    Eagle,
    
    If there is a way for guns to be traced at a national level already,
    I'm wondering why it is often so difficult for police to find out from
    where the gun originated?  Could it be the cross-state traffic from
    states with much looser gun laws to the tighter control states, and if
    so, could a uniform code such as Jim's be helpful?
    
    Regarding there still being discrimination...the scenario you provided
    would be grounds for a gigantic civil rights suit against any police
    department that acted that way.  And I'd be willing to place money that
    the ACLU would take the case.
    
    Regarding the reading test analogy -- it is interesting, but I don't
    really see how it is valid.  As stated before, this is the *only*
    amendment with a qualifier and so long as the regulation only regulates
    competence with the weapon and doesn't restrict, I don't see how it
    becomes infringement on the right. Even the rights without qualifiers
    have been given restrictions  -- I cannot endanger people by using my
    free speach to shout "fire" at crowded public places, while my
    political and artistic speech has almost *no* restrictions.  The
    "well-regulated" in the second amendment indicates, to me, that
    competence is a reasonable qualifier for carrying a weapon.  The
    language of the other amendments doesn't allow for the reading test
    anology, but again, even some of those have limitations.
    
    Reading the Constitution is a lot like an exercise in literary
    criticism.
    
    Daniel

    Herb, do you mean the *bullets* ? Problem is, when a bullet strikes
    an object at bullet-type speeds it tends to deform. In certain
    types of ammunition this is minimized, (eg. 'solids' for large
    dangerous animals) and in others it is maximized. Then there's the
    problem of home-made bullets - lead, tin, a heat source and
    a mould. Low-tech. Lots of people cast their own bullets today.
    Some use special presses to swage modern-style copper-jacketed
    bullets. Not much more difficult. Yes, there are major problems with 
    your idea. 
    
    One question about registration of arms - what will it *do* ?
    
    There are millions of unregistered guns out there, and guns are
    not hard to *make*. A gun isn't high-tech like a chip. Street
    gangs used to make and use 'zip' guns made of a piece of wood, 
    a rubber band, a nail, and a piece of tubing. Ammunition is
    not hard to produce. I can't for the life of me see how registration
    of guns is going to stop, or even slow down, armed crime. I can
    see how it will make confiscation easy, should the government 
    decide to do so. 
    
    If you are serious about stopping criminals, there are more effective
    means. Means which do not pose *any* threat to the law-abiding.

    <<< Note 83.200 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>    How about if the FID is the social security number?
 
	Actually, federal law prohibits the use of your SSN for identification
	purposes not related to the payment of FICA or IRS taxes.

Jim   

    
    
    What do gun-users/owners and/or members of the NRA think should be done
    about the increase of guns on our streets?  It seems that what would
    have been a fist fight 10 years ago has become a shootout today.
    I would concede that increases in drug availability have influenced
    the increase of street violence, but it still seems to me that there
    are more guns out there today and more people are using them.
    It strikes me that one way gun users could hold onto their right
    to bear arms would be to work for responsible gun control.
    
    Although I wouldn't choose to use guns for recreation or self
    protection, I respect the rights of those who do choose that -- 
    as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to peace and quiet.
    In other words, I wouldn't want to live near a shooting range.
    
    I also think that guns are dangerous in the home, but I think we've
    reached a stalemate on that one -- supporters of gun ownership use
    see guns as a way to protect themselves and loved ones -- I think
    that if guns are present, they will be used and will kill more people
    than they save.  But with regard to street violence, I think there's
    room for more exploration and consensus building.  I'm impressed
    by how much many of you (gun users/owners) know about gun safety
    and laws, and I'd really like to know more about what you think
    would be a way to get guns off the streets without unduly
    restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to use
    guns.
    
    BTW -- with regard to Eagle's reference to the sherif (police
           chief?) who wouldn't give Nancy an LTC -- I think that's
           an example of sexism, not of a "feminist" anti-gun
           conspiracy. Somehow I picture this beer-bellied "sherif"
           saying, "now, Honey, you don't need a gun -- what you
           need is a boyfriend..."   barf.
                                                               

      <<< Note 83.201 by SSVAX2::KATZ "Support your right to arm bears" >>>

>    If there is a way for guns to be traced at a national level already,
>    I'm wondering why it is often so difficult for police to find out from
>    where the gun originated?  Could it be the cross-state traffic from
>    states with much looser gun laws to the tighter control states, 

	It isn't really "difficult", although it may be time consuming.
	Every purchase from a licensed dealer is recorded on a BATF
	Form 4473, this lists the serial number of the firearm and the
	purchasers name and address. All legally acquired firearms are
	initially sold via this process. Private sales between individuals
	are generally not regulated in the same manner.

>And I'd be willing to place money that
>    the ACLU would take the case.
 
	Since I need some new equipment, could I enquire just how much
	you are willing to wager? The ACLU has consistenly refused to
	become involved if firearms rights cases. Their official posistion
	is that the 2nd Amendment refers to a "collective right" and not
	an individual one.

   
>    competence is a reasonable qualifier for carrying a weapon.  

	In my compromise I would agree, however I do not feel that
	is reasonable if the firearm is not carried. Refer back to
	my response to the "car" analogy.

Jim

    <<< Note 83.202 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>    I suggest tht to be effecticve this new law would require a F.I.D. to
>    purchase ammunition.

	Not a viable option. Not all ammo is "store bought". I currently
	reload virtually all my own ammo from components. 

	Besides, ammo doesn't shoot. The restriction on the firearm itself
	would be all that is required.

Jim

         <<< Note 83.207 by COGITO::SULLIVAN "Singing for our lives" >>>

    
>    What do gun-users/owners and/or members of the NRA think should be done
>    about the increase of guns on our streets?  

	Speaking strictly for myself, make it illegal to plea bargain
	an illegal possesion charge, make it illegal to plea bargain
	a violent crime, enact legislation that CLEARLY recognizes the
	right to use of deadly force in protection of life.

	I differ from most of my collegues on this one; Legalize (or
	at least decrimnalize) the more popular recreational drugs.

>responsible gun control.
 
	In this context, a non sequitur. Responsible gun-control actually
	means being trained well enough to hit what you aim at.
   
>    I also think that guns are dangerous in the home, but I think we've
>    reached a stalemate on that one -- supporters of gun ownership use
>    see guns as a way to protect themselves and loved ones -- I think
>    that if guns are present, they will be used and will kill more people
>    than they save.  

	The stats don't support this popularly held belief. A firearm
	is almost 30 TIMES more likely to be used defensively than it
	is to actually kill.

>I'd really like to know more about what you think
>    would be a way to get guns off the streets without unduly
>    restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to use
>    guns.
 
	The bottom line is "criminal control" not gun control.
   
Jim

    About "criminal control"  I'm a bit of a revisionist...the idea of
    controling criminals by "locking them up" is both wasteful and doesn't
    address the root issues of crime.
    
    Are we talking about the traditional throw away the key approach or a
    revision of society that addresses the poverty cycle which acts as a
    major contributor to violent crime?
    
    Daniel

    While we're on that subject, even if we were able to address root
    issues of crime, I still would think that demonstrating competance is a
    reasonable compromise and is deducable from both the amendment and the
    rest of the Constitution.
    
    But I haven't *really* flogged those to death, have I?
    
    Yeah. Right.
    
    Daniel

    re. Note 83.212  
    SSVAX2::KATZ 
    
    >About "criminal control"  I'm a bit of a revisionist...the idea of
    >controling criminals by "locking them up" is both wasteful and doesn't
    >address the root issues of crime.
    
    True. However, releasing criminals is clearly not working. I'd like
    to see a system that really discourages *repeat* offenders. Anybody
    can make a mistake. Twice ? Maybe. But when someone is obviously
    oblivious to the rules of society, it's time to remove that person
    from society. I'd also like to see limits on plea-bargaining, 
    especially on repeat offenders. For instance, "no-one may plea-
    bargain away more than one felony charge in a lifetime." That
    would have put Patrick Purdy where he belonged, in jail. It also
    would have stopped him from obtaining guns legally. 
    
    >Are we talking about the traditional throw away the key approach or a
    >revision of society that addresses the poverty cycle which acts as a
    >major contributor to violent crime?
    
    The poverty cycle can be attributed to a lot of things. One that
    comes to mind is the excessive taxation that the government imposes
    for its pet projects - like busting drug users. The war on drugs
    sucks billions out of the economy, reducing the number of jobs,
    (which *contributes* to drug use/abuse), making criminals out of 
    millions, and has utterly failed to stop drug use. So, does the
    government give up and admit they are wrong ? No, they come up
    with HR4079, which would allow them to further abuse their power.
    Poverty-drug use-crime-poverty. Nasty cycle. 
    
    The roots of crime are many, and I don't know if we'll ever (pardon
    me) root them out. I do know that getting making criminals with
    stupid laws does not help, making black-market drug dealing so
    lucrative doesn't help. Increasing government to fight a problem
    which government *creates* is not merely stupid, it is dangerous.
    

<<< Note 83.212 by SSVAX2::KATZ "That creature has stolen the space modulator!" >>>

>    About "criminal control"  I'm a bit of a revisionist...the idea of
>    controling criminals by "locking them up" is both wasteful and doesn't
>    address the root issues of crime.
 
	But we must admit that there are actually TWO issues.

	One, what is to be done regarding the "current" generation
	of criminals?

	Second, how do we go about ensuring that a "new" generation
	is not created?

	To the first, I do not see many options other than enforcement
	and punishment. For the second, we must deal with the root
	causes.
   
>    revision of society that addresses the poverty cycle which acts as a
>    major contributor to violent crime?
 
	Specifying "poverty" as being the root cause is somewhat simplistic.
	There must be many other factors involved. 

	I would like to see programs that stress education and the much
	ignored "work ethic" for a start.
   
Jim

    <<< Note 83.214 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>knowing full well that
>    the 'liberals' will NEVER let that proposition be implemented because
>    of  ACLU issues, due process of law, cruel and unusual etc...

	I would find it hard to fathom opposition to enforcing
	current laws on these grounds.

>    Frankly, I don't think the 'conservatives' would let that be
>    implemented in any case because of the costs. 

	This is one of my main complaints, we attack "guns" because
	it's cheap. We don't enforce criminal codes because they
	are expensive. Anyone want to guess WHY we have a problem?

Jim

    <<< Note 83.217 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>    If the purchase of guns, if the purchase of bullets, if the purchase of
>    powder were severely controlled, through some licensing structure, the
>    impact of guns on American society would be greatly reduced. I think it
>    is just a tad disingenuous to try to reduce the suggestion to absurdity
>    by pointing out how one can make one's one ammo/guns.
 
	In the 100 year history of "gun-control" this has not proved to
	be the case to date, why would we want to admit that a "new"
	law would be any different.

	Even the draconian laws in the U.K. (much vaunted by the
	control crowd) have failed in this regard. Gun crimes are,
	and have been, on the rise in the U.K. in spite of all the
	laws.

   
>    I don't believe you seriously entertain the notion that if all shells
>    and guns were licensed <in whatever appropriate fashion> that the
>    ability to manufacture shells, ammunition, and guns illegaly would
>    STILL result in the kind of killing (what was the figure earlier?
>    14,000 a year?) that our society now sees.
 
	I absolutely believe this, plus the fact that this type
	of regulation would inhibit (many would not want to go to 
	the trouble) people from buying firearms. This will simply
	make the job of "criminal" more risk-free. Not a "good"
	goal in my book.

Jim   
    
    

Re: <<< Note 83.214 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>>    The NRAers can stipulate heavier, more focused, sharper,longer, more
>>    certain etc penalties and law enforcement etc knowing full well that
>>    the 'liberals' will NEVER let that proposition be implemented because
>>    of  ACLU issues, due process of law, cruel and unusual etc...

I think you'll find most "NRAers" fully supportive of all rights and are against
the infringement of any right; we just focus on the 2nd Amendment.

Someone who is anti-gun, though, feels that the BoR is a Menu, to be picked
from and rejected at will.

I ask, who is more consistent in their philosophy?

                                    Roak

    re: 83.29
    
    I agree with your prediction.  Unfortunately, it will be harder to
    control illegal ownership of firearms by law-breakers.  Then the only
    organizations with guns will be the U.S. Armed Forces, Federal/Local
    Officials, and common criminals!
    
    I can hardly wait.
    
    J-
      

    		I'm probably making a mistake straying from my read
    only habit, but....
    	I've been a gun owner for over 30 years, I have never broken
    a law (other than 2 speeding tickets), what on earth will the
    registration of my guns do to help get guns out of the hands of
    criminals?  I notice a large propensity for facts in this notesfile
    and I apologize for not having any, but it seems to me that very
    few of the gun related deaths in this country are attributable to
    lawful citizens intentionally trying to harm someone.  The point
    that I can't seem to get by is the contention that registering
    my guns is somehow going to effect the number of guns in the hands
    of criminals, I can't even get to the point where I need to consider
    the constitutionallity of it because I can't get past the logic
    that registering my guns means anything to anyone but me.  
    	If someone out there wants to look at a program that requires
    anyone wishing to buy a gun to have gone thru some type of training/
    licensing process that is consistent across the nation (i.e. NRA
    Hunter Safety type course) that's fine with me.  But again, what
    does that have to do with whether or not I ever buy a gun?  I can
    go out today and study, take a test and obtain a drivers license
    that gives me the privelege to drive in any State, but I don't 
    ever have to buy a car.  Ok, so I'll study, take a test and obtain
    a "license" to buy a gun.  I am the one that would commit a crime,
    not the gun, therefore I should be licensed/registered, not the
    gun.  It doesn't mean I ever have to buy a gun, it just means that
    if I want to I can, and if I do, then I have shown that I have
    been exposed to the knowledge allowing me to handle a gun responsibly.
    	Laws after all are only for lawful people, only lawful people
    abide by them.
    
    bob
    
    

According to a Department of Justice study (note: not the NRA), if all handguns
were banned and were somehow confiscated, what would happen?


Don't hit return until you've come up with your own scenerio!


Less criminals would carry, so the gross effect would be less armed criminals.

But...


Those who still wish to cary would substitute sawed off (so they could be
concealed) shotguns and rifles.  Because of the more powerful ammunition
shotguns and rifles use, these would be much more deadly.

Net result?  Fewer shootings, more deaths.

Gun control lesson #1:  What you get is sometimes the opposite of what you
                        expect.

                               Roak

    <<< Note 83.228 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>    However, I do see the ramifications of gun control very, very clearly.
    
>    Innocent people would have some rights infringed.
>    Fewer people would die.
 
	The first sentence is true, without a doubt. The second sentence
	is a "feeling" and can not be "proved". All the currently available
	evidence and history tell us that it is NOT true.   

	Please tell me how the recent numbers supplied by the FBI
	for the DECREASE in the murder rate for Miami for the first
	year that Florida had LIBERALIZED their gun laws supports
	your feeling.

Jim

Re: <<< Note 83.235 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

Herb, you failed to answer Jim's question in .234 (re: Florida).

I would think that would give us a good starting point to answer your "a"
view.

				Roak

Re: <<< Note 83.235 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>>    I *believe* -CANNOT prove and think it would be futile to attempt to-
>>    that such a change would result in a society more like our cousins in
>>    Scandinavia and the rest of western Europe.
      -----------         ----------------------

Just think, just a few notes ago Herb was saying:

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 83.163  The politics of firearms as related to self-protection   163 of 236
VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK"     9 lines   6-AUG-1990 13:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    wow!
    
    would you care to elaborate on why you feel that the citations you gave
    france,
    norway
    vietnam
    phillipines
    
    are relevant to a discussion about guns in American society

    <<< Note 83.239 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>


Herb,	Perhaps it would be useful if you answered my question.

Jim

Does this discussion continue to fall under the charter of this notesfile?
	Mez

Re: <<< Note 83.241 by OFFSHR::BOYAJIAN "A Legendary Adventurer" >>>
    
>>    If it saves lives, the benefit is obvious.

I guess I need some details and data for this conclusion.  What would save
lives?  How would it be implemented?  And finally, what data do you have
to support the fact that this will work?

Broad generalizations won't work if you truely wish to debate.

                               Roak

Speaking of data, Herb, we're still waiting for an answer.

    
    
    It seems like the same few folks are going round and round here.
    And I'm not sure any new ground is being covered.  Can we give
    this one a rest for a while, and/or maybe give some other people
    a chance to share their ideas?
    
    Justine as comod

Re: <<< Note 83.247 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

>>    I haven't advocated stricter gun control in this discussion. Perhaps a
>>    more careful reading of my replies is in order.

Ok, after a careful reading I find:

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 83.228  The politics of firearms as related to self-protection   228 of 248
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK"   12 lines   8-AUG-1990 16:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>>    However, I do see the ramifications of gun control very, very clearly.
>>    Innocent people would have some rights infringed.
>>    Fewer people would die.
    
By the wording it is obvious that you're not too concerned about some "Innocent
people" having "some" rights infringed.

But you feel that the fewer people would die; a totally unsupportable conclusion
given the data available.

True, you haven't suggested anything, but you are quite willing cry "yes, yes!"
to other's proposals and suggest extensions (such as your suggestion on
imprinting FIDs on ammunition).

One is left with no choice but to conclude that you are pro-control.

                                 Roak

          A police chief in town X denies a woman a license to carry for
          protection of life.  Now, she becomes somewhat annoyed,
          especially since she knows that several of her (white male
          homeowner) friends who live in the same town have that exact type
          of permit.

          So she hires a lawyer to subpeona the records of who has been
          getting permits in this town.  Much to her surprise, there are
          several women who _were_ able to obtain pistol permits.  Well,
          there goes the sex discrimination theory...

          but wait...  some inside info from a "townie" reveals a link
          between all the women who were granted permits.

                         What is the common link?

    Maybe they were wives of officials? Police officers?  maybe Police
    officers themselves? 

    I'm with Al, the answer's gotta be one of the ones he guessed...unless
    it's that they've all been granted permits since this woman filed suit

    
    	re: .251 (Al)
    
    	> Maybe they were    wives of [...] Police officers?
    
    	Bingo.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    Kinda figured that.... seems to be the norm amungst bacon types..:-)
    
    Al

    
    Given the high rate of wife abuse among police officers, maybe it's
    not such a bad idea to give their wives guns.....
    
    Justine

    
    
    I thought the answer might be because the guns were registered
    in their husbands name and the wives were co-owners...(tee-hee)

    i hope that i'm not repeating someone else's response since .90, but
    there's too much to read in the small time i have available.
    	REGULATED: in the 18th century the term was used in the same way
    that "disciplined" might be used now.  Well-regulated meant "practiced" 
    or "skillful".  Taken in the context of writings of Jefferson and others
    of the period, it would seem that the framers considered that citizens
    who owned their own weapons would be more likely to use them to good
    effect when their services were required.
    
    Sorry, but the idea that a "controlled" arms bearing populace was their
    intent doesn't wash well.
    dale

    re: 228
    	>Fewer people would die.
    
    Le'ssee if i understand this correctly - if only Cain had not had an
    assault rifle, Able would still be tending his flocks; if the members
    of the Roman Senate hadn't been concealing those handguns under their
    robes, Caeser (Julius) would still be Imperator.
    
    WHICH people would be dieing in fewer numbers.  If there are no weapons
    with which the small can leverage their strength, every contest between
    good and evil will go to the large and vicious.  Is that REALLY  what
    we want?
    		dale
    

    105:
    	Late breaking news: the U.S. Department of Health Education and
    Welfare is considering a ban on the manufacture, sale and/or possession
    of shoes having heels higher than 1-1/2 inches.  The rationale is that
    foot problems are not only costing the economy MILLIONS of dollars
    each year, but that people are getting cranky from having sore feet and
    taking it out on innocent bystanders, and even family members, through
    acts of VIOLENCE.  Anything that will help reduce the level of violence
    in our society, they say, HAS to be a good idea.
    

  <<< Note 83.253 by DCL::NANCYB "set seen/auth=-WN-VAMPS/start=yesterday" >>>

    
>    	> Maybe they were    wives of [...] Police officers?
    
>    	Bingo.
    
 	Just to get things rolling again, what is the general consensus
	regarding the application of  a law based either on the sex of 
	the individual involved OR based on just who the individual may 
	know?    

Jim

    About two years ago an L.A. newspaper broke a story about the relative
    numbers of Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permits in LA and Ventura
    Counties.  An analysis of the records showed that virtually all of the
    LA Co. permits were for employees of the "justice" system: judges,
    prosecuting attorneys, retired's.  Furthermore, the issuance rate per
    1000 of population was about one/fifth of Ventura's and one/tenth of
    Kern's (immediately North).  Funny thing is Kern's violent crime rate
    is about one-tenth of LA's.  I wonder, could there - just possibly - be
    a correlation?  Like, some function of the inverse of the number of
    armed GOOD-CITIZEN'S?
    

.261> I wonder, could there - just possibly - be
.261> a correlation?  Like, some function of the inverse of the number of
.261> armed GOOD-CITIZEN'S?
    
	If one takes your note in the context of Nancy's attempts to
	get a permit to carry and her findings about what women are
	given permits to carrying, what you have just said is appalling.
	Judgeships and other law-enforcement-related positions have
	long been a male-donimated province, and therefore, the group
	of "Good Citizens" you refer to (especially since it includes
	retirees, who are representative of a generation when women
	were practically unheard of in these positions) is almost
	exclusively male.

	One might suppose that the pursuit of one of these careers
	is limited to good citizens, but news reports tell us
	otherwise.  Crime rates deal with _reported_ crimes.  If the
	crimes go 'unreported' because it's the police who commit them,
	for example, the crime rate will 'be' low.  I'm not saying
	that this is the case, I'm saying that your logic appears, to
	me, to be hasty.  This is precisely the sort of logic used
	to back up arguments that women should not be given gun permits,
	and it's *not fair to anyone*.
	
	"Good Citizen" is a value judgement.  And, in the case of the
	conclusion you drew, it's a value judgement weighted *against* 
	women.

	    Sharon

    Sharon:  I think we may have a communication problem, here.  
    Among the counties cited, only L.A. was so restrictive as to limit
    permits to the legal establishment.  In Kern County, for example,
    almost any citizen with a clean record, and anything resembling a sound
    reason, can get a CCW permit.
    Let me restate some of .261:
    	Could it be that the LOWER per capita rate of violent crime in 
    the other counties (NOT L.A.) is due to the greater number of citizens
    who are legally armed?  
    The situation is still appalling.  Permits, throughout the country are
    still issued on an arbitrary basis.  So far as i know, no state has a
    system which requires a dept. to issue when an individual meets an
    OBJECTIVE set of criteria.
    				dale
    

                      <<< Note 83.263 by HIGHD::DROGERS >>>

>So far as i know, no state has a
>    system which requires a dept. to issue when an individual meets an
>    OBJECTIVE set of criteria.
 

dale,	New Hampshire REQUIRES that a permit be issued unless there
	is a valid reason for refusal (valid reasons are listed, ie.
	convicted felon, ajudged mentally incompetent by a court,
	convicted drug abuser,etc.)

	Florida will issue a permit upon completion of a competency
	test and completion of a 4 hour safety course.

	These are just two that I know of.

Jim
    

I wasn't sure where to, er, enter this, so I thought I'd, um, put it in 
here:

From yesterday's Boston Globe:

"British sailors on warships in the Gulf are using condoms to stop 
windblown sand from drifting down the muzzles of anti-aircraft guns. 
According to Capt. Peter Nelson of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Fort 
Grange, the latex condoms are 'a perfect fit' for 7.26 mm machine guns. The 
condoms are supplied free to Britain's Persian Gulf forces by an unnamed 
manufacturer."

fitting indeed ... ;-)

    ...and the machine guns are complaining about lack of sensation...

    	In Vietnam, we used the plastic wrappers from the spoons
    	in the C-rats. Of course, you had to tie the plastic on.
    	It didn't stretch at all.
    
    	Scott

NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 9/24/90 -- The U.S. Judicial Conference, which is
chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist and sets policy for the federal court
system, has asked Congress for "pre-emption legislation" which would
allow all 1666 federal court judges to carry concealed weapons anywhere
in the U.S. regardless of state or local laws. The reason for the request
is that 2 federal judges have been killed (one by a letter bomb) in recent
years. 

	 **Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms**

				June 1990

           		JACQUIE MILLER, LOUISVILLE VICTIM, 
			THE CCRKBA GUN RIGHTS JUNE AWARDEE


		"The story of citizen Jacquie Miller, the designated
	recipient of the CCRKBA Defender of the month award for June,
	underscores the stupidity of proposals to ban semiautomatic
	firearms and gives some indication of the grass roots reaction
	to the hysteria upon which such proposals are based," CCRKBA
	Director John M. Synder said recently in Washington, D.C.

		JACQUIE Miller, born November 20, 1950, was a
	victim last fall in Louisville, Kentucky when Joseph
	Wesbecker, a disgruntled former Standard Gravure printing
	employee, killed eight people with semiautomatic rifle
	fire before committing suicide with a semiautomatic handgun.
	Miller herself was shot four times, once each in the stomach,
	pelvic area, back and right leg.
	
		In spite of her pain, Miller opposes recently proposed
	legislation to ban or restrict semiautomatic firearms, reports
	Richard Bedard in the Lexington, Kentucky HERALD-LEADER.
	
		In fact, when Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson sent her
	a sympathy letter in which he said he would "aggressively
	lobby for legislation to eliminate the manufacture, sale, and
	possession of semiautomatic weapons," Miller said "It angered
	me immediately."

		"I feel I should have the right to have a gun" she stated.
	"It's our right in the Constitution."

		Speaking on the telephone a day after surgery to repair
	part of a leg bone that had been shot out, Miller said if Abramson
	"would have just said 'so sorry about what happened, speedy 
	recovery,' I could've respected him for that.

		Miller also took issue with the statement in the Abramson
	letter that "No argument of a citizen's 'right to bear arms' can
	logically justify the need for such weapons of destruction."

		"He has no right to say that," Miller said. "I'm laying
	here in the hospital, four bullet wounds, a right leg that's not
	going very well, but I'm going to keep carrying my gun, law or
	no law!"

		Miller had her brother prepare a written response to 
	Abramson, arguing that morality cannot be legislated, and urging
	Abramson not to "use hysteria as a basis for lawmaking," and then
	signed it.

		Abramson said he was surprised by Miller's reply. "simply
	stated my opinion," he said. "I felt it was an opportunity to 
	extend my sympathy to those who were affected and let them know
	the position I had in relationship to the senseless murder and maim-
	ing of individuals by such a rapid-fire assault weapon."

		Miller has carried a gun for nine years, since she was 
	chased in a parking lot by three men. They beat on her car windows,
	almost breaking them. During the violent encounter, a car behind
	her in the parking lot drove quietly away without helping.

		After she escaped, Miller got a .38 caliber pistol and had
	a friend who had been in the Army show her how to use it. "I
	thought 'well, I'm a woman alone. I'm not going to be babysat,"
	said Miller, who was divorced just before the parking lot incident.
	"it was either sit at home or get protection, and I've been carrying
	a gun ever since."

		On the day of the Louisville shooting, Miller had the pistol
	in her purse, loaded with five cartridges, even though she did not
	have a concealed weapon permit. She was working on the third floor
	of Standard Gravure in the personnel department when she heard what
	she thought were fluorescent bulbs breaking.

		"It didn't sound like gunfire or I probably would've grabbed
	my gun first. It sounded just like fluorescent light bulbs sound 
	when they explode, and I heard somebody say 'oh no, oh no, oh no.'"

		Miller moved to the hall where Wesbecker stood with his 
	semiautomatic rifle. Miller said they briefly made eye contact. 

		"He was gone. He was totally gone," she said. "There was 
	nothing inside of him." Miller turned and ran back into the 
	personnel department to get her own gun. As she put her hand on the
	the .38 in her purse, Wesbecker fired.

		Now, Miller the demands for gun control following the 
	shootings result from hysteria. She is dismayed at what she sees
	as a tragedy being turned into "one big political exploitation."

		She is less worried about semiautomatic firearms than she is
	about the threat to her personal freedom to carry a weapon.

		"This gun legislation they're setting up is just bull,"
	she says. "It's just going to end up Big Brother is watching you.
	The government is going to have total control. The citizens aren't
	going to have anything and the criminals are going to have a field
	day."

		A 1968 graduate of the duPont Manual School in Louisville,
	Jacquie has worked at Standard Gravure for three years.

    
    
    	Could someone please explain the following:
    	(I saw this as a byline without explanation)
    
    	"KristalNacht:  Why every Jew needs to own an assault rifle."
    
    							nancy b.
    

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this I believe occurred
    in Germany prior to the official outbreak of WWII.  It was
    a horrible night where anti-semitism reached a peak and many
    townspeople turned agains the Jewish in their community, 
    destroying their homes, business, lives.
    
    
    Christine

    Christine is correct; Kristalnacht, the night of breaking glass, was a
    thuggish operation of the Nazis against the Jews.  Homes and Synagogues
    were trashed, defaced, burned, people were brutalized; raped, killed,
    arrested.  I beleve that the arrests that night were the first people
    sent to concentration camps.
    
    DougO

    	"KristalNacht:  Why every Jew needs to own an assault rifle."

KristalNacht was a night of rioting in Germany that destroyed many
synagogs and Jewish-owned businesses.  It was called KristalNacht
because the rioters destroyed windows, chandeliers, and other glass
objects.  It was one of the events that preceeded the Holocaust.

I would, however, disagree that it is a reson to own an assault rifle.
Would you, for example, say "Kent State: why every student needs to
own an assault rifle?"

Martin.

    How about, "Halloween in Dorchester: why every woman needs to own an
    assault rifle."  
    
    Lorna  
    

re: .273 (Martin Minow)

> I would, however, disagree that it is a reson to own an assault rifle.
> Would you, for example, say "Kent State: why every student needs to
> own an assault rifle?"

Martin, based on what I've read here about KristalNacht, I don't 
think the 2 events are close to being in the same ballpark.

						nancy b.

    Ballpark hell, Nancy, Kristalnacht and Kent State weren't even in the
    same *country* (literally or figuratively).

          re: 83.277  (Mike Valenza)

          > I suspect that the Weather Underground didn't see it that way.

          I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that...
          That they would not have approved of Jews using force and
          aggression in defending themselves during Kristalnacht?

          I see that type of thinking (along with the philosophy of not
          believing in using force to defend yourself or your family) as
          the ultimate denial that society has failed...

          I think that is one reason  thinking about self-protection --
          what exactly _would_ you do if you were physically threatened,
          and what if _that_ didn't work, and what if... --
          is frequently avoided.  Not only is it an unpleasant thought, it
          forces you to acknowledge one way that society has failed.

          I choose to not deny this (any more.)

                                                            nancy b.

    
    
    
    		=maggie....      Guess what?
    
    

    You won??

    
    	> You won??
    
    	Yes.  [long, tired sigh]
    
    	(for those of you who haven't the faintest what I'm referring to...
         I just was "granted" a license to carry firearms for the purpose
    	 of personal protection by my darling police chief.  The first
    	 time I applied, I was denied because I had "insufficient reason"
         although it was interesting that white, male homeowners in my
    	 town had no trouble getting permits for protection.)
    
    	 The best advice I was given (and followed) was from a black male
    	 in another town whose chief denied him a permit even after he
    	 met all the qualifications as described by the state (like I did).
    
    	 Gory details will be provided when I have a spare hour or 2 to 
    	 type them in.  And the details got gorier than anything I ever
    	 wrote in V2 about what was going on too...  
    
    							nancy b.
    

And that ain't all she won! Double congrats and hugs, Nancy    
    
    
              <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 3054.96                       A.W.A.R.E.                          96 of 100
MEMV02::ROBERTS "Steel wheels & wheel Guns"          24 lines  28-NOV-1990 19:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



		BAY STATE LADY TO GET CCRKBA DEFENDER AWARD!


		Well it looks like Nancy has caught the ear of those
	outside the DEC community and the State of MASS. 

		Congratulations to Nancy!

		Below is the first paragraph of the article. I wish I had
	the time to copy all of it.
	
            ***********************************************************

		"It's not often that I have the distinct pleasure of 
	nominating someone for the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the month
 	award who hails from on of the centers of anti-gunnerism in the United
 	States," said CCRKBA Public Affairs Director John M. Synder, "but 
	that truly is my opportunity for the month of November in Suggesting 
	Nancy Bittle of Maynard, Massachusetts, near Boston."


	    ************************************************************

    
    	Thanks, Dana.
    
    	I got a kick out of the part in .96 where John Snyder says
    	something about "who hails from one of the centers of anti-
    	gunnerism in the United States"  ;-) ;-).
    
    
    	I am honored to receive this award,  even though AWARE
    	is not **directly** an RKBA organization  (that is GOALs job ;-).
        We're not political, we _are_ a non-profit.  We do distribute
        information on the laws and legal precedents.

    	As stated in our flier, AWARE's goal is decreasing the level
    	of violence committed against women.  How we specifically 
    	are reaching that goal is through enabling women to consider the
    	choice of firearms in self-defense, somewhat similar to what was 
	done in Orlando in 1966 that resulted in an 80% reduction in
	the rape rate there that had been escalating at an alarming rate.
	A comprehensive article on what happened in Orlando that year
	can be found in the journal:

	Social Problems, Vol 35, February 1988   in the article
	"Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force"

							nancy b.

	

    Congrat's Nancy,  I've followed your fight through v2 and v3 of =wn and
    I can't think of a nicer thing to have happen after what you've been
    through.  Hailing from Colorado, I haven't got any real idea of Mass
    handgun control, but having read your accounts, I feel I have a better
    handle on what it's like out there.
    
    Keep up the good fight to reduce violence, and I am sincerely glad you
    have finally been offered the opportunity for effective self-defense.  
    
    Meg

    Congrat's Nancy.  Now I can say I know a celebrity.    ;^)

     Sorry, no congrats.. I beleive that the last thing we need today is
    another person carrying around a firearm.
    
    REK

        No ... the last thing we need today is for only
        criminals to be carrying around firearms.
        
        Dan

    Congratulations Nancy! I know how much this means to you, and how much
    you had to fight to get it.
    
    	-- Charles

Congrats Nancy!!

btw, I got my t-shirt ..it's excellent, thanx

Jenna

          Thanks for all the congrats.

          Meg, from what I hear, you don't have anything like these hassles
          in Colorado.  Nancy Peaslee, you may have my autograph if I may
          have one of your (unannounced) ______'s ;-).  For testing
          purposes only, of course ;-).   Charles, thanks, it _was_ a long
          fight, and I'm glad it's over (hmm... well, license renewal is in
          5 years...).  And Jenna, I'm glad you liked the tee-shirt!

          It was reassuring to know I was "legal" as soon as the next day
          (Saturday night) at Crone's Harvest when, about 15 minutes into
          Ms. Salkind's comedy performance, there was a loud thud against
          the glass front door.   At first I thought someone threw
          something against the it, but it was probably just some kids.  In
          any event, I (quickly) thought of what could have happened.   At
          least 2 of the women present I _knew_ had been through Model
          Mugging.  So if a few people came in and were just verbally
          abusive, between them and the rest of the women present, we would
          have been OK.  If they had gotten physically abusive without a
          weapon, I think we _still_ would have been OK.  If they had a
          baseball bat (the newest "weapon" of choice I hear) or a knife...
          hmm,  let's say we hopefully would have been able to keep them on
          the ground, disarmed, till the police came or at least have
          caused them to scram and reported the incident to the police.
          The lesson here is that varying levels of threats require varying
          levels of self-defense.

          Unpleasant thoughts, realistic situations.  I'm glad it didn't
          happen.  And whoever it was that walked out the front door after
          whoever it was that pounded on the door was taking a risk I would
          not have taken.

                                                  nancy b.

    Nancy, I think you owe us a move-by-move account of your triumph over
    the sexist bureaucracy.
    
    							=maggie

    
    	re: .291 (=maggie)
    
    	> Nancy, I think you owe use a move-by-move account of your triumph
    	> over the sexist bureaucracy.
    
    
    	But =m, what if I had to f*ck him? 
    
    						good-morning ;-),
    						nancy b.

    
    then we want video
    

    re .293, and some stills for the womannotes photo album! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

	Someone has come up with yet another way to get a 
	license in the PRM.  

	My way was essentially:  
	
	o  planting seeds who would be able to get licenses
	   with no questions asked
	o  using those people for recommendations on my application
	   (a not-so-subtle way of saying "I know what you're doing")
	o  calmly and passively indicating that I couldn't understand
	   why others were able to get licenses and I was denied
	o  in response to the question, "why didn't you appeal this
	   last time?", I answered, "I didn't have the money then."
	   (with a very slight emphasis on  'then')
	o  indicating I had written State attorney general (Wayne
	   Budd) who said he is always interested in a case where a
	   citizen of MA is being treated unequally under the law
	   (and also helped a black male from another town in a similar
	   situation get a license)  and   MCAD
	o  indicating I would involve the selectmen if the matter
	   went any further

	Another woman's way of getting a license was this:

	Some police chiefs (mine too) say that you could get one if 
	you carry large amounts of money (thus people of power and
	influence can usually get one by this way.)

	This woman knew this, and created a record of large deposits
	and withdrawals at her bank.

	How large is large?



	$50,000.

						nancy b.

    
    	The videotape of the beating of the LA man by 3 LAPD
    	(Los Angeles Police Dept.) officers with the voice-over
    	saying:
    
    	"Handgun Control Inc. believes only the police and military
    	 should have guns.
    
    

    excuse me, -d, just a small point or two.
    
    it has been alleged in another file, by someone who tried, that a
    Hundai cannot achieve 85, let alone 100+.  The cops lied.
    
    and even if the man had done something truely heinous, beating him
    after zapping him with serious voltage and after he (as seen on tape)
    is clearly not offering any resistance whatsoever is not exactly
    kosher.  Not in the usa, anyway.  Jumping on his head was also a bit
    excessive.
    
    I'm not trying to speak for Nancy.  But one reason police may abuse
    their powers (when they do) may be because they are aware of the
    relative powerlessness of the unarmed population.  I know *I* would be
    extremely wary of contradicting an armed angry 6' 230lb police man.
    
    Sara
              

    No, I think the point of the proposed commercial is that even the
    police, to whom we entrust our safety and therefore allow to possess
    firearms, are NOT to be trusted with our safety. In other words: a cop
    cannot be counted on to protect our liberty and freedom. (Fredom from
    having the sh*t kicked out of you by a representative of the government.) 
    
    If we cannot count on the police (as legal gun toting representative
    of our government) to protect out freedom, then it must be legal
    for private citizens to own guns.  
    
    Personally, after long thought, I am pro choice on gun ownership.
    There is no reason in the world that I can think of why law-abiding
    mentally-competent citizens should not be able to own firearms if
    they want to.  I am NOT saying folks should go out and shoot people
    or get a gun and fight with the cops; I AM saying if people want
    to owns guns, they must be able to.
    
    RE: 297, Dick, if indeed the guy was convicted of a felony, he would
    have lost his gun permit, if he had one. 
    
       Margaret    

    Re:297... I can't believe what you wrote... Its people like you that
    are making guns very accessible to kid by not having strick gun control
    laws..

    REK
    
    
    I read somewhere that most cops belong to the NRA... Seeing is
    believing....

    re .300 What sort of gun control laws would you propose to limit
    accessability of guns to children ? (Without, of course, limiting
    access to firearms by responsible adults.)

    Outlaw all handguns for starters.....
    
    REK

    Impractical. Next?

    Re:Why?

    In view of the incident alluded to in .296, do you really want
    to create the sort of police force necessary to round up the
    extimated 70 million handguns in circulation ? 

    You have to start somewhere..... Start now....

    >start now
    
    Which will drive up the price, which will make it harder for
    responsible persons to get a handgun, which will drive the
    black-market price higher, which will make it more lucrative 
    to steal guns, which will drive the crime rate _up_, while the 
    means of personal protection become harder to acquire.

	Rek,

	In the last version of =wn=, I politely asked you what
	issues you have with the private ownership of firearms
	by law-abiding citizens.  You ignored me.

	Studies (Dept. of Justice financed by Gary Kleck, sociologist
	and criminologist and professor) show that many more crimes
	are **prevented** each year by firearms than are committed.
	(I can post the exact figures tomorrow).

	Taking away firearms would also leave many people who have 
	no other means of protecting themselves defenseless.  

	So even if it were *possible* to remove firearms from all homes
	(and IMO that's less likely than solving the drug problem)
	the result would be _more crime_ and _more victimization_ 
	(a la Washington DC and New York City that have the strictest
	gun control laws in the US).  

	If all handguns were magicaly removed, a greater proportion of 
	such crimes would be committed with edged weapons.  
	(such as in Mexico City which has one of the highest murder rates 
	going, but they are mostly by edged weapons -- knives.)  

						nancy b.

    Nancy, thats a lot of crap. I like the odds on confronting someone with
    a knive than a gun..... Mexico City is a great example.... What about
    Liverpool England... 1 death last year caused by a hand gun....
    
    REK
    
    I'm more interested on keeping hand guns out of the schools.....

    Re:310.. A lot of good points... Can't we just buy some Ninetindo
    games for these gun-nuts?
    
    REK

    re .311 Will you please answer my question re. the police
    force required to confiscate all handguns ? 

    Please do not include personal insults or insults to groups in your
    postings in this file.  They violate the notesfile guidelines.
    
    -Jody

    REK,  YOU might be able to defend yourself against someone with a
    knife or bare hands, but their are a number of us who are smaller
    and/or weaker then the majority of possible assailants.  If you haven't
    read any of the accounts of survivors of attacks, I suggest you go back
    through them.  
    
    I guess I just don't understand what you find so sinister about
    firearms.  They are merely inanimate tools, no more capable of misusing
    themselves than any number of power tools.  Most of the owners of
    firearms aren't looking for a fight or hepped up on an overdose of
    (pick your favorite) hormones increased by carrying said inanimate
    object.  They are law abiding human beings just like you, who happen to
    feel they need more protection than a knife, barehands, or a gallon of
    flammable liguid and a lighter.  Or they enjoy hunting, or target
    practice or any number of skilled competitive target sports.  The vast
    majority of gun owners are responsible with their firearms regarding
    usage as well as storage, safety, and family members.
    
    Please don't refer to me as a gun nut, it really is an implied insult
    as to how I conduct myself in regards to firearms and responsible
    usage.  I am a woman, a mother, a professional, a voter, a partner, and
    only incidently a fireams owner and member of the NRA.  
    
    Meg

    Meg, how do we keep handguns out of our schools?
    Nancy, people die from handguns because they are very easy to get.
    Countires around the world have proven with out a doubt that banning
    hand guns works great for them. I would like to give that a chance
    here. The major cities are having trouble with gangs
    drive-by-shootings. I have yet to hear of some one throwing a knive
    from a car at some one....
    
    REK
    
    Jody, gun-nuts is not a personal attack on anyone, its is a term that
    is widly used....

    
    You know, REK, I'd be much more willing to listen to you if
    you wrote something intelligible about your position, and your
    saying, "that's a lot of crap" to Nancy is not a good way to
    get me (or anyone else, I believe) to *listen*.
    
    It is true that I am against your position, but I acknowledge that
    there *are* good arguments on your side of the fence (I personally
    happen to think that the arguments on the other side outweigh them,
    but that's my opinion and I'm not discussing that right now).  But
    I have not heard any good arguments from you, old or new, just a lot
    of whining, in my opinion.
    
    It is obvious to me that Nancy's done her homework on this subject, and
    has supplied many thoughtful words on the subject.  If you want to
    convince anybody who has not already formed an opinion on this subject
    of the merit or rightness of your side of this issue, you must do the
    same as Nancy has done.  On the other hand, if you just wish to hurl
    insults, I guess that's easier.
    

    
    re .315:  Well, my .316 collided with your .315.
    At least this is a start at communicating, in my opinion.
    

    re .315 >Countries around the world have proven without a doubt that
            >banning handguns works great
    
    How many of those countries had a large (there's that 70 million
    again) number of handguns in the public hands when they banned
    handguns. You still haven't adressed that problem - how will you
    deal with that 70 million ?

    Melt them down for scrap metal. 
    
    REK
    
    PS Please answer the question, how do we keep hand guns out of
    our schools?

    re. guns in school - make it a crime for parents to leave guns 
    unsecured. 
    
    re>melt them
    
    How do you propose to round them up for melting ? I realize you don't
    wish to adress the practical aspects of confiscation, because that is
    where your solution falls apart. But I do wish you'd give it a little
    thought. Maybe then you'd realize that your solution is simplistic.
    I do _not_ mean this as a personal insult to anyone. I merely ask
    that those who propose a handgun ban as a solution to society's ills
    understand what their solution entails.

    The same way we bring our glass, cans etc. for recycling...
    Just add another barrel at the dump...
    
    Now answer the question, how do we stop handguns out of schools?
    How do we check to see if all the hand guns are locked up?
    
    REK

    re .321 Volunteerism ? Guns cost money. They are an interesting 
    hobby. Some are works of art. They provide personal defense. And 
    all the criminals will just dump them in the barrel. WADR, you've 
    gone from the merely impractical to the ludicrous.

    
    re .321:  Well, we keep them off airplanes, by the use of
    metal detectors.  I thought I heard of a school somewhere
    (maybe Boston?) using metal detectors at their doors.  Doesn't
    strike me as a bad solution, but there may be more to it than
    strikes my eye.
    

    Makes sense - you'd get knives too.

    I believe a number of schools in inner cities and other "tough"
    areas have had to resort to this to keep their students from being
    gunned down or knifed in the corridors.
    
    --bonnie

re:               <<< Note 83.321 by FDCV07::KING "Jesse's Jets!" >>>

>>    Now answer the question, how do we stop handguns out of schools?

Personally, I think we should outlaw drugs. That way we could keep them
out of schools and away from our children.

What's that you say? Drugs are already illegal? But it's sooo easy to go
on down to the school yard and buy them... I don't get it.

REK,

	I hear your concerns, I don't know how to keep handguns away from
children, and I don't know how to keep drugs away from children. But making
them illegal obviously won't work. But you can start right now educating
your own kids. Tell them what to do if they come across a handgun or any
firearm. I do know that education works, especially if you start young.
I know it works because I grew up with firearms in the house. I don't
know when my father started teaching me about them but it was before
I started having memories :-). And that education worked quite well, it
never would have occurred to me to pick up a gun in anger.. e gadz, but
believe me there were times when I was mad enough at my brother to really
want to hurt him :-). If your son were to walk into my house right now
I can guarantee that no matter how hard he tried he wouldn't find a firearm.
Every gun owner I know is conscientous (sp) about keeping firearms locked
up and out of sight. Unfortunately, it's the few that mess it up for the
thousands of us who know how to take care of them.

Jenna

    people who are going to be violent will use whatever is at hand. 
    My family has had personal experience to prove just how dangerous a gallon
    of gas and a lighter can be in the hands of a lunatic.  I am not going
    to suggest that gallon gas cans and butane lighters be outlawed. 
    Because this was a "simple domestic disturbance" 911 didn't have police
    on site until after someone pulled the fire alarm in the building.
     
    There are laws against carrying into schools and in some locales 
    laws that punish gun owners for failing to keep their guns under lock 
    and key when children are involved.  Having gun safety taught in
    schools might remove the mystique of firearms, and implant the true
    reality of what firearms are capable of.  Education at home and in the
    schools teaching respect for others might help.  This means that
    "adult" authority figures will also need to treat the kids with
    respect, rather than as hoodlums in the making.  In other words,
    children become the way they are treated.
    
    That is my idea of how to teach non-violence to kids, and only by
    making our society less likely to go for the instant solution will we
    clear the violence problem.  I try to raise my children this way and it
    seems I am constantly having to explain to "authority" figures that
    their actions are causing the reactions they don't wish to have.  
    
    Meg     

          re: .315 (Rek)
          > Jody, gun-nuts is not a personal attack on anyone, its is a
          > term that is widly used....

          Rek, it's nice that you (as the person doing the name-calling)
          don't believe the term "gun-nuts" is a personal attack.

          I do consider it to be an offensive term, since it seems to one-
          dimensionalize someone who owns firearms.

          Besides, the women I know who are firearms-owners are some of the
          most *intelligent*, *independent*, and *practical* _women_ I've
          ever met!    Not nuts.

    Here's my story:
    
    several yrs ago after a daytime robbery of my home, we looked into
    getting a gun or dog for protection.  We decided on a dog but this was
    our reasoning.  I have a daughter and at the time i didn't want a gun
    in the house.  I got a book about women and guns, still have it and
    will enter the title later.  It was really the best choice because: 1)
    a person entering your house at night is usually there to cause mayhem
    and injury.  They are most likely armed with either gun or knife. 
    Daytime burglers are rarely armed because armed robbery carries greater
    penalties than unarmed burglery.  Anyone coming into your house at
    night KNOWS that people are in the house and they want to cause harm in
    addition to robbing you.  I would get a gun big and powerful enough to
    blow a hole thru them.  I am a small women, and don't want to deal with
    a wounded person, they are likely to be more violent.  I don't want
    them to get up.
    
    2) upkeep in minimal except for shooting lessons, which should be
    required for gun ownership, especially handguns.
    
    My dog died last year and now I am in the position of again wanting a
    gun for protection.  I don't want another dog as my lifestyle has
    changed now.  
    
    I am considering buying a gun and accompanying shooting lessons.
    
    I support tighter gun control laws, but not outlawing handguns
    entirely.  This is what i consider reasonable:
    
    1.  A 30 day waiting period after picking out or ordering a handgun. 
    This would provide plenty of time for a background check.  It would
    prevent people from just going in a getting a gun whenever they wanted,
    a cooling off period if you will.  They make you wait 30 days to get
    sterilized, why not wait 30 days to get your gun?  Of course the gun
    store owners wouldn't like it, some might change their minds in the
    waiting period, inventory on the shelf, but doctors have to wait too,
    to get their money.
    
    2.  Require some certification of gun lessons, ie how to care for the
    gun, storing, cleaning, safety features, etc, as well as how to shoot
    it.  Proof of the taking the course would be required at time of
    pickup.  I am sure that there are enough gun clubs etc around that
    would be more than happy to supply this training, they would profit
    too.
    
    3.  There are already jurisdictions that require permits to carry
    handguns.  I am still mulling over a requirement that handguns kept at
    home must also be permitted.  
    
    well, those are my thoughts today.  they may change over time, but my
    personal safety is my concern.
    
    sue

    re .329 Sorry, Sue, don't know where node GUCCI:: is. In Mass.
    it takes well over 30 days to get a License To Carry, which
    is needed to own a handgun. _After_ getting the LTC you can 
    go to a sporting goods store and buy a handgun. 
    
    My beef with the 30-day waiting period is this - having already 
    gotten the LTC, why do I have to wait 30 days every time I want to
    buy a handgun ? And, having done a background check on me at time
    of issue, why should the cops do another every time I wish to buy 
    another handgun ? Alternately, suppose someone with a more urgent
    need of a handgun than me (doesn't already own a gun, is being 
    threatened) has gone through the LTC process. What good does it do 
    for them to wait 30 days ?
    
    dana
    
    

    Hi Dana,
    
    I live in Maryland.  You can buy guns in Virginia with only a 7 day
    wait.  I'm not sure of the permit requirements, it's something that I'm
    sure i'll find out when i go to buy a gun.  I guess now that i think
    about it more, permits should be required in every case.
    
    if someone who owns a gun and then commits a felony, the existing gun
    could then be confiscated due to laws banning gun ownership by those
    with felony record, after prosecution of course.  the waiting period
    for succeeding gun purchases would help identify those who might have
    been "clean" when they first purchased a gun, but who now have a felony
    record.  I hope i am clear here. 
    
    about your scenario with a person in danger wanting a gun, if they have
    reported the threat to the police, an accelerated background check
    could be done, ie priority status.  believe me, if someone has
    threatened me, i would report it to the police to at least have some
    record of the threat.
    
    i guess i need to check into what's up in maryland.
    
    sue

    Sue,
    
    The problem I see with a 30 day waiting period are numerous.  Also
    adding more paperwork to an already overburdened systme strikes me as
    unfair to all concerned.  I do support the idea of a firearms safety
    certificate, simalar to the hunters' safety course required to hunt in
    Colorado, required for firearms purchases.  This can be added in with a
    minimum amount of red tape for ffl dealers, write down the number on
    the card.  
    
    If there were an accelerated program for people whose lives might be in
    danger, what would the criteria be?  State the name(s) of the person
    threatening you?  where is the restraining order?  Living in a high
    crime neighborhood? Night work?  I mean, how do you define it, and how
    many reams of paper and magnetic ink is this going to take? For an
    extra amount of money the person could pick up the firearm he or she
    wanted from the local underground dealer and not waste time, but
    becoming a no longer law abiding citizen and therfore ineligible to buy
    a new weapon legally.  
    
    Instead of making more citizen's potential criminals, why not fully
    enforce the laws on the books for violent crimes, and also allow people
    to take some responsibility for their own safety as well.
    
    Meg

    Getting a permit to buy a gun in MA is no picnic.  To buy a long
    gun (such as a rifle or shotgun, even a .22 like Cub Scouts and
    Boy Scouts used to own) requires an ID that is issued by the police.
    It is farily inexpensive, (I think about $10, and requires a lot
    of ID and a waiting period, but I'm not sure how long that is.)
    
    To purchase a handgun (including target pistols) requires first
    getting a license to carry.  That license (which is discretionary
    and is issued by your local police chief) can be for target shooting
    only, personal protection, all legal purposes, or any of a number
    of other restrictions. Most licenses are for target only unless
    you are licensed as a PI, rental cop, or a police officer of some
    sort.  Target only means you can transport the unloaded pistol 
    to the range in a locked box that is in your car's trunk.  Don't
    even think of stoping at the 7-11 while the pistol is in your car.
    
    Getting the license requires having a certificate of training and
    safety, membership in a sports club (a few hundred dollars), three
    letters of recommendation from fellow citizens, enough ID to prove
    that you are the Tsarina Anastasia, and providing a full set of finger
    prints.                                         
    
    It also typically takes about 90 days. Getting it renewed when it
    expires takes most of the above and, since you can only begin the
    renewal process 45 days before it expires can mean you are without
    a license for a span of time.  The system is badly backlogged.
    
    I believe you can purchase a gun for the purpose of keeping it at
    home at all times, but this is next to useless.  Because, without
    practice in the use of a gun, it is no protection. 

    There is already a ton of paperwork.  But I don't think it is the
    legally owned guns that are causing the enormous crime problem.
    
       Margaret    

    I had a .22 long gun for assasination of garden varmints until the day
    that my SO started wandering around with it asking how to shoot
    herself.  I bent the barrel on the wood stove (cracking the stove in
    the process), saved the sight for a telescope, and chucked it on the
    scrap heap.  
    
    I have a friend's shotgun in the house.  Barrel here, receiver there,
    shells someplace else.  Never assemble it.
    
    We have been burglarized four times in rural Vermont.  Caught one pair,
    picked up an ash stave in case a weapon was necessary...  Still go out
    at night if something odd seems to be happening, don't need a gun.  Do
    have a brush hook I carry sometimes if it's handy.
    
    Melt the guns, or bend 'em.  Don't need to get them all now, just do it
    as they show up.  They're just a techno crutch, and no match for just
    plain human craziness and viciousness.
    
    J

    
    One reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so
    many legal ones. They get stolen, and no one is responsible 
    afterwards. Yes, by all means punish the bad guys who steal
    and use them in crimes, but also, make gun owners responsible
    (via liability insurance) for damages caused by the damned 
    things.
    
    Of course, allowing fewer to be made/sold/imported is a better
    solution..

    If someone steals your car, and runs into somebody, should you
    be liable ?
    
    Of course, the best answer is to make and import less cars.

    Of course, what the writer of .337 does not realise is that 
    people need guns in order to ride to work on them, and to 
    pick up the children from school.

    re.339 Umm, was that in re. 337 or .338? (And since when is _need_ 
    the criteria for posession? I don't _need_ jewelry, should I therefor
    be disallowed from owning any? I mean, it tempts thieves and thus
    causes crime.)

    re .340
                                                    
    In .338 you draw an analogy between guns and cars.
    In .339 I present, in tongue in cheek manner, a disanalogy 
    between guns and cars.

	The analogy presented in .338 is relevant to the subject at hand.
	Unfortunately, the disanalogy presented in .339 is not.

					Tom_K

    The analogy was meant to suggest, I guess, that those who support
    a particular position with respect to guns are committed to supporting
    the same position with respect to cars.
    
    The disanalogy is meant to suggest why this is not so.
    

    
    re .338
    
    If someone leaves their keys in the ignition, and its stolen and
    used in a hit-and-run, damned right the owner is liable.
    
    Next question?
    

    Does that make the car bad?

    I am fundamentally and unequivocally opposed to mandatory firearms
    training for children in school.  Had I been required to take such
    training as a student, I would have refused, and if I were a parent I
    would take the school administration all the way to the Supreme Court
    before I would let them force my child to take such a class.

    -- Mike

    Why?

    Because it violates my religious and moral principles.
    
    -- Mike

    OK, how about firearms _safety_ training ? Topics would include,
    at least, how to check a gun to make sure it isn't loaded, and
    how to unload it if it is. Plus the fundamentals of safety -
    the gun is *always* treated as if loaded, *never* pointed in
    an unsafe direction, finger *off* the trigger. ( I have no desire
    to quarrel with or put down anybody's religious/moral beliefs
    but I fail to see how this sort of elementary safety material
    could be objectionable.)

    I am opposed to *any* kind of mandatory training on the use of weapons.
    
    -- Mike

    I don't quite understand how learning how to use any tool could be a
    violation of moral and religious principals, but be that as it may.  I
    would prefer that my children know enough about gun safety to prevent
    the tradgedies that happen through ignorance.  My daughters both know
    not to touch guns, and to find a responsible adult should they find one
    at a friends house or should their friends have one.  (My firearms are
    kept locked up out of sight, and the rifle bolts pulled on my hunting
    tools for saftey as well as theft protection, but not everyone does
    things as thouroughly as I do ;-))  While neither has fired any of my
    tools, they do know what they are capable of and the little one likes
    to go out to the range with me and watch people shoot.  She is just a
    little small for my armament.  
    
    I still feel that if children were taught gun safety and taught well
    and at a young age, they would, A. Be less likely to be involved in an
    gun accident, B. Have far more respect for weapons, and the damage they 
    can inflict, and C. it would take the mystery and machoness out of
    firearms, and put them back in the category of tools.
    
    Meg 

    There are people who find guns so repugnant that the thought of
    handling them and having them hear about them makes them physically ill
    (to say nothing of emotionally ill).  I didn't even allow my daughter
    to play with toy guns when she was little.  Besides, public schools
    can't even afford to keep up the classes they already offer.  Where the
    heck are they supposed to get the money for classes on handling
    firearms?
    
    I am slowing accepting that people may need to be allowed to own guns
    to protect themselves from random violence, but I'm not ready to see
    shooting guns taught in public schools.  That's like admitting, Yeah,
    we often shoot each other here in America so we gotta make sure
    everybody knows how.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    How about a little mandatory training on the use of peace?
    
    (Just for variety's sake, dontcha know.)
    
    D.

Mike,

	Would it be reasonable to teach weapon safety (guns, *and* knives) and
permit those who object for religous/moral reasons to sit it out.  (There were
certainly things taught in my high school that it was permissible to sit out
if your parents objected.  Not many, but some...)

	As a curiousity, do you object to archery in high school?  We had it
as part of gym....  and as part of summer camp.

	I guess I see it in some ways as a chance to teach children that the
real world is dangerous.  How many people really know how to handle electricity
safely?  How many learn to use power tools so they don't endanger themselves or
others?  You can't shelter your children from the danger, so the next best
thing is teaching them how to minimize the risk.

	Is your objection that *anyone* be taught firearm safety in school,
or just that you wouldn't support it if it were 'required for graduation'?

						--Doug

	And yes, Dorian, I think they should teach peace as well - but there
is a distinction between the safe operation of a tool and the application of 
its operation.

							--Doug

I think firearm SAFETY should be taught in schools, just as I think
sex education and drug education should be taught. Knowing how to
act safely around guns (especially guns that others have) is just
common sense.

The religious and moral argument is used against all three of these
education topics. I disagree.

Kathy

    I think it should be an elective course, if at all.  (firearms not
    peace)  (All my life I've resented having other people force things on
    me - force me to sit through classes and learn stuff that I don't give
    a damn about.  I'm sick of having sh*t forced on me, that I'm not
    interested in, by some bureaucracy that thinks it knows how I should
    live my life.  That's how I'd feel about being forced to take a class
    in firearms or power tools.  I've never touched any of either.)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    My objection is not to teaching children about the dangers of weapons. 
    In fact, I am all in favor of that.  My objection is to forcing
    children to learn their "proper" use, since that implies that guns are
    nothing more than "tools".

    Electricity and power tools have their dangers, but I have no inherent
    moral objection to their use in our society.  For me, that is an
    important distinction.  The interesting thing about drug education, by
    the way, is that children are taught that illegal drugs are bad for
    them, and they are urged *not* to use them.  So if we are going to use
    drug education as the basis for teaching children about guns, then that
    would mean teaching them not to own guns--which is somehow *not* what I
    think is the intent behind gun safety classes. :-)

    If anyone wants to teach their children how to use weapons, because
    they feel that it would be valuable, that is their prerogative; but I
    am opposed to *mandatory* firearms training.  Even the "safety"
    training, at least any such training involving their use, tends to
    involve certain assumptions that I morally object to, and I therefore
    would prefer that if parents believe that such training is useful, they
    should take that responsibility themselves.  Some of these assumptions
    have already been expressed in this topic--that guns are merely a
    "tool", that they are no different from electricity or power tools,
    etc.

    I don't want to get into a rathole about the morality of guns here. 
    That isn't my point here.  My point is to state that I would object to
    any *mandatory* training on the *use* of firearms, in the strongest 
    possible terms.  I don't like the idea of making children sit out on
    classes if they or their parent object, for the same reason that I
    would be opposed to mandatory school prayer which individual students
    could then sit out on if they objected.  Parents who want to teach
    their children about the "proper" use of guns should, by all means, do
    so themselves.

    -- Mike
    

    Mike,
    
    This is very like the arguements against sex education.  I am opposed
    to my children having sex with random individuals, but knowing what sex
    is and how to prevent consequences from sex (STD's, unplanned
    pregnancy, etc.) is certainly valuable.  While I have taught and teach
    my daughters about responsible sex, possible consequences, and the
    prevention of those consequencs, and work on fostering a strong sense
    of self, so sex isn't used as a substitute for love, there are people
    that feel if sex is kept a mystery, their children won't indulge.  The
    schools have to pick up the slack.  
    
    I am a responsible fireams owner, and teach my children responsible
    behaviour with guns, and I take responsibility for the safty of my
    weapons as well.  However there are people who aren't as careful as I
    am, and if one of their kids stumbled upon one of their weapons, I have
    no idea how their kids would react.  Mine would know to find the
    grownup in the house and have them pickup, and return the firearm to
    an appropriate location.  Surely this isn't a horrible thing for all
    children to learn?  Learning that all guns should be treated as if they
    are loaded, and never to point them at other children, dogs, etc, is
    proper treatment of firearms.  Knowing that that cute little bullet,
    can render a living being rapidly dead might be a little graphic, but
    it is reality.  
    
    For what it's worth, my firearms are tools which feed my family and can
    be used to protect them if necessary.  They also are enjoyable for
    target shooting, but I don't treat them as toys.
    
    Meg

    re .361, I don't see how you can compare sex and guns.  People really
    can't escape sex.  Most people are born with the potential to desire sex. 
    But, people can choose to have nothing to do with guns.  If someone
    chooses to never touch a gun, then they don't need to know gun safety.
    People are not born with the biological desire to shoot guns.  It's a
    choice.  Sex isn't.
    
    Lorna
    
      

    re.363 It's not that simple. Suppose your eight year old child,
    whohas been playing at a neighbor's, walks into the house and
    says, "Look what I found at Johnny's!". The kid is holding a
    loaded 45 automatic, finger on the trigger. What do you do ?
    *Right now!* 
    
    (Let's agree that little Johnny's father is an a**hole for leaving the
    gun unsecured. We'll deal with him later.)
    
    *Right now!* If you do the wrong thing, you may get shot. Your
    child may get shot. *Right now!* 
    
    With the number of guns in this country, that scenario isn't too
    far-fetched. Being strongly anti-compulsion myself, I'm not keen
    on mandatory training in weapons handling, either. I would like,
    at least, to see something simple like the NRA's school program. 
    Three simple rules for children who encounter a gun: Don't touch,
    leave the area, tell an adult. 
    

    re .364, yeah, okay, I have to admit that's a good point.  (What would
    you do in that situation?)
    
    Lorna
    

Dana, that (.364) hits very close to home... next door, actually.  My neighbor
hunts, and has several rifles for hunting.  One of the first times I was in his
house was the night before he was going hunting with his black-powder rifle 
(late Nov).  That rifle was leaning against the wall in the living room -- not
on a high shelf, not locked up, not on a table anywhere.

His son, a 6yrold, has told my 6yrold son that his dad will let him shoot the
gun when he is 8, and that he will be allowed to use it then.  I mentioned this
to the dad, and the son is just a bit optomistic -- his dad said that 8 would be
the earliest he would BEGIN to TEACH the son.  What bothers me about this is NOT
that there are weapons in the house -- heck, there were rifles in my house when
I was a kid too, and I learned about them -- but that I am not sure that the
rifles are unfailingly kept locked out of reach, with ammo locked away
seperately.  Also, the kid is a wild one, not terribly obediant, and I have no
real belief that he will respect what he's told on this (or anything else).

So I have made it a point to tell my kids that guns are NOT for playing with,
they are ALWAYS loaded whether they are or not, NEVER point a gun at anyone
unless you mean to shoot them, and that if they are ever next door or anywhere,
and a kid brings out a gun, they are to leave.  Right then, no waiting, go get
an adult or go home or go elsewhere and call for a ride but to LEAVE right then.

any other/better suggestions?

    I mentioned earlier, I am very much in favor of teaching children that
    guns are dangerous.

    The difference between guns and sex is that my children may or may not
    choose to own a gun when they grow up, although I would hope that I
    would instill my values in them so that they would not want to "own a
    gun for personal protection".  On the other hand, I *would* expect them
    to have sex at some point in their lives, since I do not object to
    adults having sex per se.  Teaching sex education involves teaching
    children to use a sexuality that they will inevitably be endowed with,
    in a responsible manner.  On the other hand, it is not inevitable that
    they will own guns.  I therefore wouldn't want my children learning in
    school how to use a gun, particularly if that would contradict the kind
    of message that I would be teaching them at home about guns and
    violence (for example, if I am prohibiting my children from owning any
    toy guns at home, and then finding them using a real gun at school).

    -- Mike

    re .367, yes, I agree, Mike.  That's what I was trying to say about
    guns vs. sex, too.
    
    Although, maybe there should be classes just around gun safety without
    actually teaching how to use the guns.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, I don't think I would have a problem with that.
    
    -- Mike

    I have a question. If one is supposed to keep firearms locked, how can
    they be used for protection? If I own something like that, I would keep
    it where I can reach it quickly. Of course, then there would be the
    danger of the burglur getting his hands on it before me.
    
    I totally disagree with comparing guns to power tools. The
    other tools maybe dangerous but they're not invented to kill. 
    manisha 

I left Kentucky a little more than three years ago. During the year
before I left, there was a rash of gun accidents involving children.
The deaths I remember reading about involved curiosity and ignorance on
the part of the children, and bad gun habits on the part of the adults
who owned them.

I think there is a reasonable chance that firearms safety training would
have prevented the children from hurting themselves (and each other).
Some of these children were hurt or killed when they were at a friend's
house, so the fact that their own parents didn't own guns wasn't enough
to save their lives.

Kathy

    Manisha,
    
    there are several ways to lock up guns and ammo that can still give you
    ready access.  I know of a lock box (combination) that bolts to a bed
    and at night you set the combination so that the last number is all
    that has to be set.  I keep a noisy dog, so if necessary I have a fair
    warning that things are not well at home.  As for hunting rifles, I
    store them locked away separate from their ammo.  first thing a high
    power rifle is not the sort of thing to use on your average burglar,
    rapist, or whatever, the chances of a stray round hitting a neighbor's
    house or going beyond that is too great.
    
    While you may disagree that guns are tools, what else would you call
    them.  The are an artifact which you use to do a specific job.  If
    properly used, they help you complete the desired task, if improperly
    used they can maim or kill yourself or others accidently, just like a
    car, staple or nail gun, airless sprayer, radial arm saw, or what ever.    
    
    Mike, I din't say that I want your kids to learn how to shoot, but I do
    want them to know what to do should they or their freinds run across a
    firearm, the don't touch, leave the area find a responsible adult
    thing.  That is part of gun safety.  In my case my kids will learn
    more, but that is because I feel they should.  
    
    By the way I don't encourage toy guns either.  When they do show up in
    the house, the kids lose them if they practice shooting at each other,
    the cats, or being irresponsible toward them.  This goes for the
    neighbor's children as well.  I don't encourage violent play and remove
    all equalizers.
    
    Meg

    re .370 Hi, Manisha. The correct phrasing would be, "Guns must
    be kept under the owners control or locked up." That is, if and
    when you are actually in a situation where you rely on the gun
    for defense, like sitting at home or in bed, the gun is nearby.
    When you leave the house, the gun is unloaded and locked up.
    Too many people just leave the loaded gun in the nightstand drawer
    or the dresser. *wrong*wrong*wrong*
    
    Dana

    .357
    
    All I'm saying is, since the topic is what to teach the young, it might
    make sense (given the state of the world) to teach them, not how to use
    weapons, but how to avoid using weapons. I guess it's a trickier
    subject to target.
    
    D.

    Meg,
    
    Ok I'll agree to call them tools. But there's a big difference between
    guns and other tools. Other tools harm when not used properly. Guns
    harm even when used properly. Now you may say that there's less harm
    done because you've killed the guy for self-protection. But I'm not
    sure everyone will agree with you. I'm not sure where I stand on the
    issue. I'm just trying to point out why the analogies sound a bit
    far-fetched to me.
    
    manisha

> Guns harm even when used properly.

a nit; not always.  One proper use of a gun is in preparation for
self defense; if the sight of the gun stops the assailant from actually
carrying through the attack (ie, they run away instead) then the gun
has not harmed anyone, and has been used properly.  This is reported to
happen between 650,000 and 2,000,000 times per year, according to a US
Department of Justice study.

DougO

	...and if a gun is never pointed at another living object, but only
at a target, then, as a tool, it has harmed no one. (Barring, of course,
failure of the tool resulting in injury to the user.)


						--D

    I admit I think of guns only as for self-protection. I wasn't thinking
    of target shooting. I've heard/read that don't aim a gun at
    anyone unless you're prepared to shoot. I've extrapolated that to mean
    don't buy a gun (for self-protection) unless you're willing to shoot
    (read kill). So from my understanding the "proper" use of guns is to
    kill.
    
    On the other hand proper use of knives is to cut onions.
    
    manisha

    re.379 More correctly, the proper use is to _stop_ an 
    immediate threat of grave bodily harm. That may or may 
    not mean 'killing'. Since a) in the majority of cases the
    sight of the gun causes the assailant to stop and b) three
    out of four shootings are _not_ fatal, the _willingness_
    and demonstrated ability to employ deadly force probably 
    works out to cause a net _lowering_ in the incidence of
    harm. 
    

    Hmm,
    
    I wonder if that 13 year old that was killed in the hallway of his
    school last year by his 13 year old classmate, would still be alive,
    if his classmate had had "a safety in firearms class."  It seems
    the first boy called the second one out of class, the teacher being
    too afraid to intervene, and killed him in the hallway.  I forget
    what the reasoning (?!) was behind it.  This happened in the jr. high
    about a mile from my house in good ole quiet Worcester.
    
    M.
    

re: .382

	Might have, but I doubt it.  In any case, that's not the issue that
firearms safety is trying to address.  Face it, if someone really wants to
kill, there are plenty of ways other than guns.

	Firearms safety training is meant to help prevent accidents.  The
(im)morality of killing another person has to come from somewhere else...

					--D

    I strongly believe in teaching kids firearms safety to try and reduce
    the chance of accidents. I have talked to the principal of my kids
    school  to get a firearms safety course put in right along with
    bike,fire, electricity, poision and how to dial 911. Firearms are a
    fact of life and they should not be ignored. I have taught all my kids
    friends, the ones they play with frequently, firearms safety rules and
    taken them to the range for a little pratice. I do me best to insure my
    kids safety from whatever dangers their are. Safety training and
    knowledge provide the best safety for kids. I don't want my kids
    playing with anyone who could present a hazzard with firearms.  

From the Reuters News Service ...
 
****************** Start News Release *****************************
May 1, 1991
 
         POLICE OFFICIALS SAY CITIZENS SHOULD TAKE UP ARMS
         ================================================= 

U.S. Police Chiefs see the breakdown of the justice system as the
main cause of crime and believe citizens should learn how to handle
a weapon, according to a survery released Wednesday.
 
A poll taken for the National Association of Chiefs of Police
surveyed heads of more than 15,400 U.S. law enforcement agencies
and found that 87 percent think citizens "should take training in
self-defense with firearms to protect their homes and property".
 
The poll showed that 83.6 percent believe the criminal justice
system has broken down to the point that it's inability to
prosecute and imprison criminals is the major cause of crime,
and 95.1 percent said that courts are "too soft on criminals in
general".
 
Nearly 90 percent believed their own departments are understaffed
and three out of four said that they cannot provide the same level
of service as a decade ago, the survey said.
 

    
    what proportion of all chiefs of police belong to this outfit?
    
    what proportion are chiefs of police in real cities like San Jose,
    Chicago, NY, Boston, SF?
    
    Hard fer me to imagine a sane, responsible chief of police voluntarily 
    agitating for yet more people to arm themselves with guns..
    

    
    
>    what proportion are chiefs of police in real cities like San Jose,
>    Chicago, NY, Boston, SF?

If you look at those cities as representing *all* of the country there is a
real problem. 

   
>    Hard fer me to imagine a sane, responsible chief of police voluntarily 
>    agitating for yet more people to arm themselves with guns..
    
I would not call it agitating merely stating (or restating) the fact that
1) the police are powerless to protect you.
2) law abiding gun owners are not a problem in the eyes of 86% out of 140+k
   police.
3) since over 1 million crimes are *PREVENTED* each year by armed citizens
   (FBI stats, not _mine_) that perhaps that is the answer to the growing
   crime problem.

  Not long ago in this country the understaffed police/sherriff could, and 
did, call on citizens for a posse. they were deputized and despite the
movies of lynchings, usually did a reasonable job of assisting law 
enforcement. As we have become more urbanized we have moved more and more
to the "government will do it all for me" school of thought. Society has
to recognize that there is a lot breaking down, we may have to do a lot
more for ourselves in the future. One of those things *I* will do
is protect myself, my family, my friends.

"A country where only the police have guns is usually called *A POLICE STATE*"

Amos

nit alert re .387:

>2) law abiding gun owners are not a problem in the eyes of 86% out of 140+k
>   police.

The note citing the article specified 87% of *heads of departments* promoting
citizens arming themselves. This does not necessarily translate to the same
percentage of the rank and file police ... keep apples with apples. 

It would be interesting (and possibly even instructive) to see the number 
weighted by the number of citizens served, sort of per capita. Let's see ...
you'd take the ratio of [Citizens served by police depts favoring citizen guns]
to [Total Citizens] and see which direction from the 87% it moves. This way,
the size of each department's community would weight the department head's 
opinion accordingly. I'm not sure how relevant the opinion of the head of the
Dustball, Wyoming's police department is if you live in Paramus, New Jersey.

If the weighted average is higher than the unweighted average, then you might
guess urban police are desparate for any help they can get. If lower, then you 
might guess urban police would prefer to see fewer guns, relatively speaking, 
than suburban police are willing to see.

One other point on CITY-VS-COUNTRY

most big-city police chiefs are political appointees who have little or no
"street" experience. They echo the sentiments of those who appointed them.
smaller towns/cities county shriff's-offices etc tend to be controlled by
men/women who advanced through the ranks, who understand fear, who have
faced criminals, who have had to "housekeep" after a crime. These people
are in favor of all the help they can get. which includes armed citizens.

BTW small towns/east coast is not as peaceful as you might think, it may not
get reported but unfortunately it is there. Amos   

    i recently read "Armed and Female" and came upon an interesting bit of
    news (re: it was news to me!)
    
    the police are NOT obligated to respond to calls for assistance.  in
    other words, if they don't want to respond, they don't have to.
    
    this particular bit of information was graphically illustrated to me
    when, a few months ago, we heard an altercation between a male and
    female at the nearby high school parking lot.  my home borders on the
    school property, it was a quiet night and you could hear clearly.
    
    the woman was screaming "let go of me, let me alone" and the man was
    screaming "no you b*tch, i'm going to f**k you whether you want to or
    not" 
    
    i called 911 and got the dispatcher on line.  it took about 10 -15
    minutes for them to ask me questions, and i understand the purpose of
    those questions, but by the time the police arrived, the couple was
    gone.  the dispatcher must have asked me 10 times where the cross
    streets were even tho i told her correctly and indicated the back
    parking lot of the high school by name.
    
    kinda give you great confidence in the police force.  i have been
    contemplating how to protect myself in certain situations.  i am almost
    resolved in buying a gun and investing in the lessons in how to
    properly handle and shoot one.  because believe me, if my life or a
    member of my family's life is threatened, we will not be the ones to
    suffer.
    
    the criminal puts him or herself at risk when they choose to invade
    private space while armed.  i won't agree to allow that criminal to be
    risk-free in dealing with me or my loved ones.
    
    sue

    interesting perspective about life and the protection of same.
    
    try this one....i am a small woman and any man has the capability of
    killing me with his bare hands.  the laws of the land state that one
    may use deadly force to repel an attack that can be deemed deadly.
    
    people who break into a home at night, either armed or not, are not
    usually there just to rob the place.  they are there to hurt someone. 
    Most robberies occur in the daytime by unarmed robbers.  if they get
    caught, the time is not as much as if they were carrying a weapon. 
    they don't want to hurt anyone, so they rob while no one is home.  of
    course, this is not always true but is for the most part.
    
    so, i posit to you, if you are a small woman and a man is in your home,
    at night, uninvited, armed (or unarmed), and is there to rob and most
    likely to injure you and your family members, what would you do to
    protect yourself from injury and death?
    
    i support the right to bear arms.  i MAY want to exercise that freedom
    to protect myself.  i do have the right to protect myself, according to
    law.  for home defense, the most effective weapon is a handgun, for
    short distance accuracy purposes.  i don't have a problem with waiting
    periods, but i do have a problem with people telling me that i don't
    have the right to protect myself with the most efficient weapon of my
    choice.
    
    sue

I just love being attacked *BECAUSE* of membership in an organization.

IMHO The right to self-defense is *THE RIGHT TO LIFE* for me and my family
because of certain physical limitations I choose a firearm as the tool
of self-defense that works for me. my possesion of firearms in no way 
threatens any human who does not first attack me or mine. there are many
cases, some in this file that also demonstrate a physical reason that a
firearm is/was/would-be the best form of self defense.

Amos

    I've had similar problems with the police in my town over the years. 
    There'd be fights and people raising hell in my neighborhood, I'd call
    the police and they'd never respond.  So I found out who the watch
    commander on the evening shift was, called him and explained to him in
    gory detail (complete with the names of the dispatch officers who
    answered the phone when I called.)  I did so calmly and rationally
    trying to make him see that I was genuiinely concerned and not trying
    to bust his stones needlessly.  He gave me a direct dial number to his
    desk and told me the nest time I called, if a cruiser didn't show up
    within 10 minutes, to call him and he'd deal with it himself.   Since
    that time, when I call the police, I usually get a cruiser within 6
    minutes.  
    
    Try talking to the public relationd officer, too.  I've found that if
    they know things are falling through a crack they try to fix it.  Maybe
    I'm just lucky.
    
    
    				Hope this helps,
    
    
    				    Regards,
    				    Ron Matthews

    your question is interesting, herb, in that it also brings up the
    rights of the individual vs the rights of the society.
    
    i believe that the Bill of Rights was designed to assure that certain
    individual rights are protected.  one of these rights is the right to
    bear arms.
    
    it is my right to bear arms.  i cannot help nor condone criminals who
    abuse their right to bear arms against individual citizens.  but i am
    not willing to give up my right just because some person out there
    can't behave responsibly in society.
    
    it's not the guns, herb, that are the problem.  it is individuals who
    abuse their rights by hurting others.  it's the criminals who are the
    problem.
    
    to answer your question, even tho it wasn't posed to me, yes, i
    consider the right to bear arms to take precedent over the right to
    life when/if it is shown that the right to bear arms causes more deaths
    than infringements on the right to bear arms causes.
    
    so to get this information, are your going to compare how many people
    who don't have armed protection are killed by criminals with how many
    people kill criminals in self defense?
    
    i think that is what you are asking.  if not, please enlighten me.
    
    sue

    herb,
    as to your (c) observation, *I* am not the ones sacrificing lives, it's
    the criminals who are doing the deed.
    
    i support very tough jail time and long jail time for these criminals. 
    i think that prisons these days make it too easy to be a criminial. 
    for those using a weapon (gun, knife etc.) in commission of a crime,
    the time should be long and hard.  i'd also like to see more "3 time
    loser" laws which are enforced.
    
    for those serving life sentences, their lives should not be like
    country club living.  maybe getting tough will send a message that
    criminal behavior will not be tolerated in society and if one continues
    criminal pursuits, they will not be allowed in society.
    
    it is my opinion that dangerous criminals are let out of jail too soon,
    in just a few years.  what have they learned?  to be a smarter criminal
    maybe.  but if they KNOW that they will be removed from society for a
    significant amount of time, that may deter some criminals.
    
    we also have to instill a respect for other's life and property. 
    according to your statement, i would guess that you think that i don't
    respect others' lives.  but i do really.
    
    i also think that your comment is a gratituous condemnation of my
    principles.  right now, i think that the movement toward the sacrifice
    of the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the
    interests of society as a whole is a very real threat to all Americans. 
    American society was envisioned as individuals making up a whole.  The
    bill of Rights was crafted and written very precisely with this in
    mind.
    
    in other words,  don't take away my rights just because some idiot
    can't control themselves.
    
    i also think that there should be restrictions, especially a longer
    period for background check for felony criminal record or mental
    instability, say 30 days.  there are already restrictions for the types
    of weapons, automatic firing weapons.
    
    a common misconception is that automatics that are commonly referred to
    are automatic loading and not firing weapons.  there is a difference.
    
    sue

    irony it is, delicious i'm not sure :)
    
    other people have the option of protecting themselves or not, don't you
    think?  i guess my motto is prepare for the worst, but not expect the
    worst.
    
    sue

I believe the question is already answered in all the statistics showing that 
the tougher the gun laws(Washington DC) the higher the murder *RATE*
(as in murders per/k population, not just raw numbers) and areas such as
Kennesaw GA and Orlando FLA where gun laws are minimal or were relaxed the 
crime and murder rate went down or is lower.

If you are interested in the theory of "if it saves one life" then of course
we need to ban the biggest killers of all, Alcohol, tobacco, cars, 
motorcycles, and bathtubs. at which time I will gladly melt all my firearms 
into plowshares or whatever.

>        <<< Note 83.404 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
>                                  -< re .-1 >-

>    It pleases me that you continue to show such insight.
    
>    It also reinforces my opinion that people who espouse these favorite NRA
>    principles can never have my respect.
 
or even your courtesy   

Herb, your attitude in here is really growing old.

Kathy


        <<< Note 83.404 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
                                  -< re .-1 >-

    It pleases me that you continue to show such insight.
    
    It also reinforces my opinion that people who espouse these favorite NRA
    principles can never have my respect.
    

    
    This string sure makes me glad we're not in a room full of loaded guns.
    
    Please folks, it's ok to express strong emotion and to disagree, but
    it's not ok to pick fights or insult each other.  I'm going to start
    taking a much heavier hand in deleting notes (as trash notes) that
    do nothing but fuel a fight.
    
    Please be nice,
    
    Justine

    
    Herb,
    
    I support you in your decision to boycott the NRA (and its members),
    but I think as long as a discussion is related to topics of interest
    to women (as I think self defense is), I can't agree with your
    contention that discussion of NRA issues doesn't belong here.
    What I won't support or allow is for you (or anyone) to be verbally
    abusive toward anyone no matter what their beliefs or your opinions
    about those beliefs.  So speak out if you choose, but you must do it
    in a way that does not violate Digital or Womannotes policies.  Calling
    a group of people "dupes" skirts on the edge of that line for me. 
    Please don't cross it or come so close to it again.
    
    
    Justine - Womannotes Comod

    Herb, you make NRA sound like a mythical beast that fools/kills people.
    But NRA is mades up of its members.

Herb,	It may also be important to note that only 2.4% of the NRA's
	total annual budget is spent on lobbying the issue of gun-control.
	Even this rather small amount (~ $2 million) comes from direct 
	donations, made by members, for this specific purpose.

	The NRA does many things besides protect the RKBA.

Jim

    
    I think thats a provocative comparison. NRA members
     probably can't be categorized quite that easily...

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB700:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 83.419  The politics of firearms as related to self-protection   419 of 419
STAR::BANKS "Lady Hacker, P.I."                      60 lines  16-MAY-1991 15:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herb, I guess I feel sort of uncomfortable with your assertion that certain
things shouldn't be allowed to be discussed in here.

I truely, honestly appreciate what you're trying to say, and value what I 
believe to be very good motives.  I can see the validity to your arguments,
and see that without a voice such as yours, I'd be missing out on some of
the debate.

I also truely, honestly appreciate what the person you're arguing with is
trying to say.  Anything said in that last paragraph can be applied to their
arguments as well.

The problem is in how it's being said.  First off, neither party is going to
win me over by displaying the largest content of vitriol.  Second, no argument
is going to be won by suppressing the other side's voice.

You say that restricting or controlling guns will reduce the number of people
killed by guns in this country.  That isn't such a bad thing, but it's also
just something you said.

Someone else here has stated the opposite position:  That places with less
gun regulation also have lower death-by-gun rates.  That's not a bad thing,
either, but it's also something said by someone else.

Your argument's points are valid on the surface:  If no one had guns, no one
could shoot each other, and in the absence of such an easy outlet for murder,
people probably won't have the patience to resort to messier, more personal
and time consuming techniques for offing each other.

The other person's arguments are fairly valid as well:  Outlaw guns and law
abiding citizens will be deprived of one way of defending themselves against
those who don't care about the laws.  (Excuse me if I got that wrong.)

I like hearing both sides of the issue.  If I cannot hear both sides of the
argument in their entirety, I will be personally deprived of the resources I
need to make an informed decision on the subject.  For that matter, I don't
think it's possible for anyone to really understand and support their own
position on any matter unless they really understand and value the other
side of the argument.  (There.  That statement will get me into loads of
trouble with everyone about everything.)

Saying that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss the other side of this issue
does not advance your point at all.  As a matter of fact, it leaves me with the
distinct impression that you're so unsure of your side of the argument, that
you don't want anyone else to have the opportunity to talk you or anyone else
out of it.  We're not talking about cookbooks for terrorism here, nor are we
advocating unlawful activity.  We're discussing whether or not something should
be legal and/or deregulated.

As I've said:  I'm sure you're arguing your position with the best of 
intentions, and I don't think anyone can fault you for what you feel in your
heart.  Just please understand that the rest of us either have our own views
(usually backed with equally honorable intentions) with just as much value as
yours, or are trying to form an opinion based on rational argument.

Being in the second group - not having a firm opinion (despite coming across
as a RKBA advocate), I can say that your tone in this note is pushing me away
from your point.  If you say the other side shouldn't be discussed, I'm curious
about what it is you're so afraid of me hearing.  I don't think that's what
you intended, is it?

    I am *not* a member of the NRA.
    
    I do not currently own a weapon of any sort.
    
    I agree fully and completely with the efforts of the NRA to resist
    regulation of firearms possession.
    
    It is self-evident to me that the ability to defend one's self from
    crime is a social good.  Every study that I have read indicates that
    possession and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens results in
    reductions in crime rates, *fewer* deaths overall, and generally more
    "polite" social interaction.  None of the gun-control bills that I have
    seen is able to deal with what to me is the major issue, and that is
    the extra-legal acquisition of weapons, and their use by criminals.
    
    I'm not a "dupe".  I've reached my own conclusions.  And I'm tempted to
    put myself into the fray of getting licensed, even though I don't feel
    a need to own a weapon at this time, simply to make the political 
    statement about this issue.
    
    Alison 

    
    well what is wrong with people having mace and tasers and such
    which reduce the most violent and unruly myn to sobbing 
    submission in seconds? 
    
    tasers are illegal fer people to own whereas pistols are not
    as a rule.. this would appear tyo me to violate common sense.

       <<< Note 83.418 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
               -< a few provocative questions, (get my drift?) >-

Herb,	You are going to have a difficult time "categorizing" NRA members.
	ANY organization with close to 3 million members will represent
	a pretty broad cross-section of society.

	NRA members that I personally know range from folks with fairly
	far right wing political views to those with a more liberal political
	agenda. Those that I call my friends include people making minimum
	wage (and wishing the government would raise the limit) to Doctors,	
	Lawyers and "well to do" that wish the government would , more or less,
	"go away".

	I've met members that, if they weren't already members, certainly had
	all the qualifications for joining the KKK. I also know one who has been
	a Sustaining Member of the ACLU.

	As for me? 40 years old, married 18 years, father of an 11 year old
	girl, college educated, middle manager, Pro-choice, anti-government 
	(particularly when it comes to government's intrusion into a persons 
	private life), registered Republican, Nationally ranked competitive 
	pistol shooter, firm believer in the right of personal self-defense 
	(and the means to effect it). So what does that tell you about the
	NRA? Very little, after all I'm only one of several million members.

	The effort to disparage the NRA as if it were, in and of itself, a 
	seperate identifiable entity has become quite popular lately. That,
	of course, doesn't make it right. It does tend to point out that
	the person slinging the mud has run out of cogent arguments though.

Jim 

My apologies for mistating your position.  I got it wrong, which is probably 
what I deserve for trying to paraphrase someone else in a couple of sentences.
It was, however relevant to what I was trying to say to the extent that I wanted
to show that I am hearing the value of your arguments, even if I get them wrong
sometime.  In the mean time, any further distance into that is just ratholing
on semantics and missing the point of what I was trying to say.

You said (quoted here, so I don't repeat my mistakes):

>    I believe that RTBAers (Right To Bear Arms) do not want the discussion
>    on that basis. And that they are frightened by having the discussion on
>    that basis. And by use of irrelevant numbers produced by that
>    professional debating society NRA, they hope to smother the discussion.

But isn't that just the same thing you're doing when you say that you don't
think that the side contrary to your argument should be discussed here? 

First, you say:    
    
>    I do not believe that NRA principles such as are often stated by people
>    like Amos, should be allowed to be expressed in this conference or in
>    any other conference.
    
>    I would hope that most people would share those opinions, and would also
>    hope that most people would share my goal which is to boycott people
>    who express these attitudes about gun-control.

Then you say that the "RTBAers" are trying to smother the conversation.  While
it is not my personal experience that they are, I'll concede to you that they 
might be.  But, is this any better or worse than you saying that they 
shouldn't be allowed to present their views here?

It may not be your intention to imitate your opposition in this fashion, but
that's the message I'm getting.  I hear you say you don't think the other side
should be allowed to say those things, and that sounds to me just like any 
"RTBAer" trying to smother the discussion.  In my eyes, which side is being more
honest with me?

If you didn't really mean to say that, then I guess I'm just here to gently
nudge you on the message *I'm* hearing, which is that you think it's ok for
your views to smother the argument of the other side, but not ok for them to
smother yours.  Which side is worse?  From my view, as I have no personal 
experience of "RTBAers" trying to smother the conversation, but I do have 
personal experience of you attempting to do so, your side of the argument 
isn't coming off very well.

Overt statements about whether or not the other side should be allowed to 
express themselves aside, I confess I'm also not very swayed by your level of
invective directed against the NRA.  Again, just my perception, but from where
I sit, it sounds an awful lot like anytime you're up against an argument that
you can't handle, you'll derail the discussion by placing it all under an "NRA"
label, which you immediately discount with terms bordering on "great Satan".

I don't know if what these people you call "NRA" are saying is the truth, nor
do I know if they're nearly as bad as you make them out to be.  What I'm trying
to find here is common sense and, if possible, truth.  I don't much care what
mouth truth comes out of; if it's honestly truth, it can come from the devil's
mouth for all I care.

Finally, you ay:

>    I believe it is important to challenge the people who are expressing
>    such ideas, not just to challenge the ideas.

I confess that I have a hard time believing you said that.  Ideas are ideas, and
in and of themselves, they are not responsible for those espousing them.  You
can discredit the messenger all you want, but that will not alter the validity
(or lack thereof) of the idea one iota.  What we're talking about here are the
ideas, not the people.

Speaking strictly for myself, Herb, I do hope you stay with the discussion (and
I have just the slightest feeling you might ;-), but again speaking for myself,
if you continue to attempt to discredit arguments by discrediting the people
delivering them (by "challenging the people who are expressing such ideas"), if
you continue to attempt to suppress the arguments of the other side, and if you
continue to use emotion as a weapon against reasoned discussion, then I'm afraid
you're winning me over to the side of your opponent.  Was that really your
intent?

In the mean time, I'm going to return to watching this note.  If I haven't made
my point clear to you (or if I have, and it's irrelevant to you), then there's
no point in pursuing it any farther.  Do your worst, but I hope you do your
best.  I will hereby quit poking my finger in your eye. :-)

re: .425
    
    
    I'll try to say this as gently as possible.  Pardon if I offend.
    
>    I have engaged in ad hominem attacks and I will continue to have very
>    strong ad hominem feelings about these people.
>    My primary motivation is to save lives.
    
    That is an admirable motivation.  But ad hominem attacks are unwelcome
    in this file, and truth be told I DOUBT that anyone in this notesfile
    has not made up their mind for themselves.  Your motivation is a good
    one, but I doubt that your expending vital amounts of energy on this
    topic in this notesfile in this tiny corner of the universe will save
    lives.
    
>    If, in the process of stating my feelings this way, I push you away
>    from my position that is unfortunate. However, if you do not understand
>    that Absolute Right to Bear Arms people are dangerous, then i doubt
>    that the most rational argumentation in the world could convince you.
    
    As I said, people in this file have, it seems, already polarized on a
    number of issues.  The most rational argumentation will not convince
    anyone who has already taken a stance and will not allow it to be
    questioned.  What the NRA may call rational argumentation, you call
    manipulation to perpetuate their "mythical dream" (in your words).  
    
    -Jody
    
    

RE: Statistics
It was said that the NRA doctor's statistics for some evil purpose.
any statistic I quote or have quoted come from such sources as the
FBI Uniform Crime statistics report. it is available to anyone in the United 
States, it is usually available in any good public library. Please feel free
to research my numbers and argue them if you can quote a reputable source
for yours.

Since questions have come up regarding the National Rifle Association I
thought I would provide a quick overview of what it does.


  The NRA is an association of almost 3 million people,
 membership is voluntary, there are no background 
checks or requirements other than an interest in some aspect of shooting 
sports. "The List"(quoted earlier in this string) failed to include 
current and past Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the U.S., United States
Senators and representatives, and thousands of police.

THe NRA provides safety and marksmanship training. It trains and certifies
instructors. Nancy B. , Carol Arego, and I, as instructors, renew our 
certification yearly. Over 50% of the instructors who train police personell
in firearms are trained and certified by the NRA. the NRA provides free
safety training materials to schools and youth groups.

The NRA trains and sponsors the U.S. Olympic and world-cup shooting teams
purely through donations by members. The Shooting teams have brought more
gold and silver medals to the U.S. than any other class of competitors
(ie swimmers or runners or wrestlers etc) since the U.S. started competing
in the olympics.

The NRA works with the U.S. Army Director of Civilian Marksmanship program
providing training as required by U.S. law to the militia. (the militia,
according to title 10 of the U.S. Code of laws being "All able-bodied
males between 18 and 45". that since is amended by the 14th and other laws
to mean "all able-bodied persons") this is not the federal troops but the
citizen militia.

The NRA provides accident and life insurance to members and loss/theft
insurance to collectors.

An office of women's affairs that handles all areas of concern to women from
availability of shooting equipment to "fit" their unique requirements, to
working the issues of licensing discrimination that exist.

An office of Police/law-enforcement affairs that provides technical 
information to police as well as legal help. any active-duty law enforcement 
officer may ask for help whether or not they are a member of the NRA.

Technical services office provides help to any member with technical 
information on all aspects of shooting from reloading through firearm 
identification through locating equipment for shooting sports.

The NRA/ILA (Institute for legislative Action) is a legally registered lobby.
Just as the Auto-workers union or NOW or American Church groups and hundreds
of other special or unique interest groups have lobbyists. Lobbying and 
lobbyists serve the perfectly legal function of informing congress
about laws that their memberships do or do not wish to see passed.
The ILA recieves only $.75 from the NRA dues all other money comes from
donations by both NRA members and other interested people.
Money does not come from U.S. firearms manufacturers as some think.
The financial statement is available on request

In the annual survey of congress and congressional aids the question
"which organizations provide the most truthfull information to your office?"
is always answered by number 1, the American Library Association and second
the NRA.

The ILA works to provide legal challenges to laws which gun owners believe are
unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment. That Amendment in our
opinion, backed up by considerable evidence, conveys an individual right to
keep and bear Arms.

Amos

Breaking my promise to stay out of further discussion here, I will drop a short
response to .426:

That is that I truely feel in my heart that I haven't made my mind up on this 
point.  This is why I find the discussion interesting.  If I sound like I made
up my mind, check with the last person I've listened to.  Then, wait until
the other point of view is expressed (in mature and reasonable fashion), and
see if I've changed my mind.

For the most part, though, I have to agree that these arguments generally lead
nowhere.

    herb,
    
    i resent your assumptions that i am an NRA supporter or member.  altho
    i have numerous interests and consider myself many things, one thing i
    am not is an organizational joiner.
    
    i am a feminist - i don not belong to NOW
    
    i support the right to bear arms - i do not belong to NRA
    
    i am a lesbian and believe in gay and lesbian rights - i do not belong
    to any gay or lesbian organization.
    
    i have arrived at my views much the same as i imagine you arrive at
    yours -- you take the available information, see how it applies to your
    individual circumstance, and make choices in how to conduct your life.
    
    i have not here in this file, or elsewhere i might add, imply that your
    reasoning is flawed, wrong, stupid, uncaring, or morally lacking.
    
    you do not own the moral high ground here.  nor do i.  we each have our
    own way of looking at things.
    
    i find it interesting that you will not answer my question about how
    you would go about collecting and comparing information on numbers of
    people killed by handguns etc.  you say you are not prepared to discuss
    that question.  but that is waht you are basing your premise on, so
    until you provide us with a methodology to support your statement,
    meaningful discussion on your point cannot continue.  Your assumptions
    remain just that, your assumptions.
    
    sue

    This reply is entered on behalf of a noter who wishes to remain
    anonymous.
    
    						Ann B., co-mod
    
    ========================================================================
    
    It's hardly pathological or irrational to fear being the victim of a
    violent crime and to want to have the right to a legal form of defense
    for oneself and one's family in the event of being in this kind of
    mortal danger.

    If I can save my life (and the lives of members of my family) by being
    prepared to defend against lethal force, then other lives can also be 
    saved in the same way.

    It makes no sense to assume that more lives are lost from guns being
    legal than from the existence of defenseless victims of lethal attacks 
    by criminals who don't use legal means to get their guns in the first
    place.

    As far as accepting false premises as articles of faith...  Surely
    someone jests...

        <<< Note 83.430 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>

>    I won't answer the question because i don't know how to answer the
>    question. Perhaps someone else can.
 
Herb,	Standard reference material for data of this type is the 
	Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Report. These reports
	are published each year and summarize data collected by the
	FBI and DOJ. They can be obtained at any good library or you
	can purchase them through the Goverment Printing Office.
   
>    If one cannot accept as an article of faith that the availibity of
>    guns in our society is a _symptom_ of our sick society, a symptom of
>    pathological and irrational but UNDERSTANDABLE fear, and contributes
>    greatly to the fatality rate, then I don't know how to convince one
>    otherwise.
 
	I, for one, can not accept this premise. The implications that
	firearms are a symptom of a sick society has no basis in reality.
	Was our society "sick" 200 years ago? Virtually every household
	had firearms at that time? Should the Swiss be labeled as "sick?
	Every male citizen above the age of 18 years keeps a weapon in
	thier home today.


>    This discussion is about fear in my opinion, not about the Bill of
>    Rights.
 
	To a great degree it is about BOTH. The increase in the per capita
	ownership of firearms IS, to some degree, a response to fear. On
	the other hand, many of us believe that the 24 words that make up 
	the 2nd Amendment are still relevant in today's society.
   
>    Would 'law abiding' supporters of gun carrying feel less safe if there
>    were no more guns in our society than there are in -say- Germany. or in
>    England? Probably.  

	Probably not. Most particularly the weak or disabled would CERTAINLY
	not feel safer.

>Would our _society_ be safer? You betcha. That's a
>    philosophical premise. 

	It certainly IS a "philisophical" premise since it has no basis
	in reality. If this were true, why is it that Florida's murder
	and crime rate dropped after the state made it easier to buy
	and carry firearms (in 1989)? Why is it that the firearms are the
	weapon of choice in less that 25% of murders, assaults and armed
	robberies in the State of New Hampshire where a driver's license
	is all the documentation that you need to purchase a gun and a
	$10 fee is all you need in order to obtain a concealed carry permit? 

>If you reject the premise, i don't believe there
>    can be a discussion.
 
	There can be discussion. However, there will be precious little
	"conversion" in light of the demonstrable facts.

Jim

On Darkover, the Compact is a universally-accepted ban on weapons that kill
from a distance.  The people are oathbound to uphold Compact.  The theory is,
that weapons that kill from a distance are cowards' weapons, that one who would
kill must oneself risk death from the opponent.  Outlawed weapons include 
bows (both kinds), any kind of projectile or energy weapon, bombs and missles
(explosive, chemical, and possibly nuclear), and (oh yes :-) laran weapons.
Swords and knives are basically the only allowed weapons.  The banned weapons
were used to wage great and destructive wars.  Restricting weapons to swords
and knives limited the degree and scale of violence. (The restrictions had
other, bad effects.)

In the Old West, the handgun was viewed as The Great Equalizer.  The sheer
physical size and strength of a person was no longer the sole determinant of
dominance, through threat of physical harm close up and personal.  The Great
Equalizer made it possible for a small person (such as myself) to resist the
absolute power of brawn.  The theory is, might does not make right, nor confer
rights.  Cheap, readily available handguns, rifled barrels, and multishot
weapons -- these increased the power of an individual against the many, and
the individual's chances, and the ability to resist brawn. (That availability
had other, bad effects.)

In both cases, and in our case now, the problem is not the weapons in and of
themselves, but in the society and it's attitudes toward violence on both the
individual and the grand scale.

I don't know how to fix that.  I don't think banning any class of weapons will
fix it.  I don't think that (most of) the restrictions that have been proposed,
here and in various other places, will fix it.

I suspect that we need a new theory...

<	It certainly IS a "philisophical" premise since it has no basis
<	in reality. If this were true, why is it that Florida's murder
<	and crime rate dropped after the state made it easier to buy
<	and carry firearms (in 1989)? Why is it that the firearms are the
<	weapon of choice in less that 25% of murders, assaults and armed
<	robberies in the State of New Hampshire where a driver's license
<	is all the documentation that you need to purchase a gun and a
<	$10 fee is all you need in order to obtain a concealed carry permit? 

    If you REALLY believe (and are not just debating) that your point about
    Florida and New Hampshire is relevant to what I am trying to
    communicate tell me so.
    Tell me you REALLY REALLY believe that, and I will delete ALL of my
    entries on this topic and I will apologize for being a fool

>       <<< Note 83.435 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
>                                  -< re .432 >-

>    Florida and New Hampshire is relevant to what I am trying to
>    communicate tell me so.
>    Tell me you REALLY REALLY believe that, and I will delete ALL of my
>    entries on this topic and I will apologize for being a fool

I am never quite sure what you are trying to communicate because
personal attacks I ignore.
BUT I REALLY REALLY believe that the point made is relevant to the discussion
of firearms for self defense, the politics of firearms,(which is what this 
note is about), and hopefully provides some factual evidence to those who
did not have access to that.

Amos

    I apologize for being a fool

    .432
    
    Well, I wouldn't use Florida as a shining example of 'safety due
    to lenient gun control laws.'  (my words, not yours I know)
    I can't remember the exact number but there were quite a few 
    children who died last year in Floriday (8?) within a two month
    period or so because they had found the gun-of-the-house.
    
    IMHO, guns can NEVER make for a safer environment, no matter where
    you live.
    
    Maia
    

    
    I guess the point I was trying to make is that guns are designed
    to kill, period.  There is no other purpose of a gun except to
    kill another living thing.
    
    Maia
    

        They don't use live targets in the Olympics.
        
        Dan

well, sometimes it is necessary to kill.  I'm sorry that it's true, but it 
is.  Humans are omnivores, not herbivores; though there is some variation, 
overall it's a fact.  That fact requires killing.

Humans are also agressive toward eachother, under various circumstances.  I
admire pacifists, but I'm not one, and woe betide the man or woman who threatens
my children.  They will be dead in short order if I can manage it.  I believe
that I have the right, maybe even a duty, to protect them, and myself.

I also believe that there are some things in this world worth fighting for (or
against).  I regret the truth that sometimes that may mean killing, either on
a one-to-one basis, or in war.  I know not everyone agrees, but that is what
I believe.

And then there's the government.  We'd be Her Majesty's subjects if it was not
a basic principle of the U.S. that citizens have the right, at the last, to 
resort to force to right wrongs.

(I'm reminded of Blackthorn's line in _Shogun_, where he is told in tones of
horror that there is *NEVER* any excuse for revolting against one's liege lord.
He replies, "unless you win".)

Now, does this mean I think we should let wanton violence reign unrestrained in
our society?  of course not!  But it does mean that I believe that I need (at
least) access to the things I need to protect myself and mine.

                      <<< Note 83.438 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    IMHO, guns can NEVER make for a safer environment, no matter where
>    you live.
 
Maia,	I have a different opinion. Guns, in and of themselves, do not
	alter the environment. People alter the environment. 

	One interesting note (related to the discussion of the intentions
	of the NRA). As soon as Florida passed it's new laws (and 6 months
	before they went into effect) the NRA offered (for free) to distribute
	firearms safety literature to all the schools districts in the state.
	This literature was specifically designed by child educators and
	carries a fairly neutral message re: guns (Stop, Don't Touch, Call
	an Adult). The MOST vocal group that RESISTED the dissemination of 
	this material (and actually blocked it successfully in a few major
	urban areas) was none other than Handgun Control Inc.

	If one wonders about the hidden motives of the NRA (and I don't believe
	that they have any), you HAVE to wonder why Sarah Brady and her 
	organization would be AGAINST safety training for children. Could
	it be that they were hoping that those 8 lives would further their
	own agenda?

Jim
    

                      <<< Note 83.440 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

    
>    I guess the point I was trying to make is that guns are designed
>    to kill, period.  There is no other purpose of a gun except to
>    kill another living thing.
    
Maia,	How do you then explain that I have owned firearms for over twenty
	years and yet have never taken a life (ANY life)?

	I currently expend something over 10,000 rounds a year and have
	yet (excepting one instance while I was a police officer) to
	even POINT a gun at a living thing.

	Firearms have many uses other than the taking of life.

Jim
    

>	I currently expend something over 10,000 rounds a year ...


This brought up an interesting picture in my mind ... I wonder how much the 
firing of guns contributes to air pollution and ozone depletion...

    The following is being entered for a noter who prefers to remain
    anonymous.
    
    						Ann B., co-mod
    
    =======================================================================
    
RE: .440

> ...There is no other purpose of a gun except to
> kill another living thing.

Maia you are wrong. Period.

Although my .22-calibre British Small Arms heavy-barreled rifle could
be used to kill another living thing. it was designed and manufactured
for one purpose. It is for punching .22-calibre holes as close as
possible to the centres of black spots on white paper targets. It is
too heavy and unwieldy for hunting or plinking or self-defence. Its
trigger pull is so finely tuned that it would be completely unsafe in
the field or in the bedroom, and it doesn't have enough stopping power
to guarantee a humane kill even if I did want to use it for hunting.

    I know I should know better than to get into this topic but...
    
    first of all <rathole_alert>...would it have been so bad if in
    1775, the colonies had decided not to go to war.  I mean, would
    our lives be so much more difficult now if the Queen were still
    head of our government?  Canada and Australia don't seem to be
    doing too badly under Her Majesty's Crown.
    
    Secondly,  you see, I realize that many children die of accidents:
    
    they fall out of windows, but the windows were designed to let air
    and light in
    
    they get run over by cars and are in car accidents, but cars were
    designed for transportation, moving from one place to another
    
    they choke on bananas, but bananas were designed to hang from trees
    and/or provide food for people and animals.
    
    Of course death happens.  But guns had one purpose when they were
    designed:  to kill, period.  
    
    And they do it well, everyday, everywhere.
    
    I can't even respond on the NRA....sorry.
    
    Maia
    

                      <<< Note 83.447 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

    
>    And they do it well, everyday, everywhere.
 
Maia,	Actually they do it quite badly, firearms are less than 30%
	effective in "killing". In other words, 70% of people that
	are shot, survive.

>    I can't even respond on the NRA....sorry.
 
	Would you be willing to make a donation to your local school
	of the material that I mentioned? I'll even split the cost
	with you.

Jim

    sigh.
    
    And here I said I couldn't respond to the NRA...well, I am all
    for educating children about AIDS, birthcontrol, and gasp, guns,
    but I am not willing to use or promote any NRA material.  I feel
    unlike you, that there is a hidden agenda, and personally feel,
    they are as "dangerous" as a group as any other "cult." MHOOOC.
    What makes it worse, is that their "danger" is covert--they even
    use pretty young blond women to advertise their "wares" on CNN.
    
    M.
    

    
    Maia, you haven't even seen the NRA safety training materials.
    I have taken an NRA safety course and a basic pistol marksmanship
    course, which you obviously have not.  IMO, you are as wrong as
    one can possibly be about most of what the NRA does.  You are
    ignorant about this.
    

                      <<< Note 83.449 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    but I am not willing to use or promote any NRA material.  

	It would seem only logical to use material that is produced
	by those that are considered to be "experts" their field.
	You would prefer people to that teach our young to un (or
	under) educated about the topic they are teaching?

	Tell you what, YOU find another organization that teaches
	firearms safety (not the rabble that tells kids "Go home and
	tell your parents they shouldn't own guns") and I'll STILL
	foot half the bill for getting that material into the school
	of your choice. If you are TRULY sincere about the concerns you
	have expressed about the tragic mix of untrained children and
	firearms, I would think that this would be a cause you would WANT
	to pursue.

>    What makes it worse, is that their "danger" is covert--they even
>    use pretty young blond women to advertise their "wares" on CNN.
 
	That "pretty blond woman" (her name is JoAnn Hall BTW) was/is
	one of the top female competitors in my particular sport 
	(International Practical Shooting Confederation). She has held
	the National title for women 3 times and the world title twice. 
	Of course she IS an expert and extremely qualified to talk about 
	shooting. 
   
Jim    

    You are of course entitled to your own opinions, and I to mine.
    
    I would/will not support the NRA.  Maybe I sound unreasonable to
    you?  So what.  They are a group that I personally do not agree
    with, on any level.  
    
    I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, I think the local
    police used to come into classrooms to discuss safety with
    kids.  I don't expect they do it now of course.  At any rate,
    if I do find a group willing to talk safety about guns, I've
    got the school already picked out.  But it won't be the NRA.
    
    Maia
    

    and for what it's worth,
    
    To further explain my aversion to the NRA, let's just say, I wouldn't
    ask a pro-life organization to come into a classroom to discuss
    birth control, nor would I ask Anita Bryant to come in to discuss
    gay/lesbian rights, nor would I ask Schwartzkopft to come in and
    discuss peace on earth.
    
    M.
    

                      <<< Note 83.452 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    You are of course entitled to your own opinions, and I to mine.
 
	Of course.
   
>    I would/will not support the NRA.  

	I'm not asking you to support the NRA. I will obtain the materials.
	I will make a donation that will offset their cost to the NRA (after
	all I'm alreasy a member, it's in my best interest not to cost the 
	organization monies that can be spent elsewhere).

>Maybe I sound unreasonable to
>    you?  So what.  

	Yes you do. If you decry the accidental death of children through
	the ingnorance of firearms safety and yet refuse to use materials
	that could prevent an accidental death of a child, then I believe
	you are not only unreasonable, but exhibit hypocritical behavior.

>They are a group that I personally do not agree
>    with, on any level.  
 
	Then, I take it, that you are AGAINST firearms safety training. This
	is one "level" of the NRA. You are against many other things as well.
	Read through the list that Amos posted. Tell me why you are against
	firearms safety, training of police officers, Olympic competition.
	I'm really interested in why you are against these things.
   
>At any rate,
>    if I do find a group willing to talk safety about guns, I've
>    got the school already picked out.  But it won't be the NRA.
 
	I sincerely hope that you find someone before some child hurts
	himself or a friend (an admittedly rare occurence). Knowing that
	you COULD have had the material quickly and delayed simply because
	you have an irrational hatred of the organization that supplied it,
	would not be something that I would want to live with.
    
Jim

                      <<< Note 83.453 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    To further explain my aversion to the NRA, let's just say, I wouldn't
>    ask ........

Maia,	Your anology is somewhat flawed. Unless your real agenda is the total
	banning of firearms. I wouldn't ask the NRA to make a presentation
	favoring this positions either. IF, however, your interest is really
	safety and the elimination of senseless accidents then I would think
	you would turn to the organization that is recognized as the leading
	expert in the field. 

	We are not talking about firearms USE here (although the NRA is expert
	in this field also). We are talking about teaching children not to
	touch a gun that they may come across. The NRA DONATES this material,
	they make no profit, they don't even encourage firearms use in this
	material. They don't show guns in a "good" (or "bad") light. They
	simply tell children "Don't Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult".
	I can't see the harm in this message, but I CAN see a great deal of
	good.

	However, the offer still stands. Let me know when you find the material.
	But PLEASE don't take too long.

Jim 

	(The attorney mentioned in the local story, Karen McNutt, 
	 below also gave me advice in getting a permit.)

--------------------------
GUN PERMIT RULE CHALLENGED
 
Club member goes to court; others fear permits won't be renewed
 
By Charles Young  The Patriot Ledger
 
BRAINTREE --- The local gun club says Police Chief Edward Flynn is
unfairly tightening the local requirements to carry a gun.  And one
club member is going to court because the chief won't grant him a
permit to carry a gun to his job and while at work.
 
Don Kusser, legislative chairman of the Braintree Rifle and Pistol
Club, said he believes Flynn is opposed to people carrying guns.
 
``I just don't think he likes guns or people having guns but it's OK
for him to have one,'' Kusser said.
 
He said there are a lot of club members worried that Flynn will not
renew gun permits.  The permits must be renewed every five years.
 
Flynn said the department is using the same standards it used under
former Police Chief John Polio and is applying those standards
consistently.
 
``These regulations predated my arrival and I was comfortable with
them,'' he said.
 
Records show in the first 11 months of 1990 the department issued 54
gun permits for protection of life and property; 10 of those were new
permits.  In the same time period it denied 13 life and property
permit applications.
 
In order to obtain the permits---which are not given to convicted
criminals or those shown to be drug abusers---an applicant must show
``a substantial threat to their person.''  That generally means they
must prove they have been threatened or have been attacked in the
past.
 
Flynn said as permits come up for renewel, some files do not indicate
why permits were initially awarded and whether the applicant met the
standard.  ``I have no way of knowing why some individuals got permits
but didn't meet the requirements.''
 
And Flynn said he will not renew licenses just because someone has
held one before.  ``I don't think the licenses are due to be
open-ended, lifetime rights.''  That fact may lead some to think the
regulations are being tightened even though they are not, the chief
said.
 
Frank Campbell, a member of the gun club and a union treasurer, says
his case shows the chief is being arbitrary in deciding who gets the
permits.
 
Flynn has rejected Campbell's request to upgrade his gun permit.  The
upgrade would have allowed him to carry a concealed weapon to or from
his union job and while working at his work.  He is currently licensed
only for hunting and target shooting.
 
Campbell said his election as treasurer for the Painters District
Council 35, Local 577, spurred him to seek the upgrade.  He said he is
required to carry money in parts of Boston and Cambridge that have
high crime rates.
 
A member of the club's high-powered rifle team and a certified NRA
instructor, Campbell said his record on handling weapons is spotless.
 
``I'm all for being tough on crime.  Some people shouldn't have
guns,'' Campbell said.  ``But I went by the book on everything and I
was shocked I was still denied.''
 
The chief said Campbell could not show a personal need---that he had
been threatened or attacked before---and he could not show that his
predecessor as treasurer carried a weapon.
 
``We've been consistent in our application of our standards.  This
individual was given every opportunity to justify an effective need.''
 
Campbell said he should not be denied the right to carry a gun because
other treasurers have chosen not to.  And he said he should not have
to get shot or stabbed before being able to carry a weapon.
 
``I don't want to be a victim.  That's the whole purpose of this,'' he
said.
 
``Although I can understand his frustration,'' Flynn said, ``the fact
remains if we extend that logic, everyone in the community who hasn't
been arrested or shown to be a drug abuser would be packing a
pistol.''
 
Campbell's attorney, Karen McNutt, is asking a Quincy District Court
judge to review the denial and award her client the upgrade.
 
``We don't restrict fire extinguishers to buildings that had fires,''
she said.
 
McNutt said the restrictive nature of Braintree's regulations was well
established before Flynn became chief two years ago.  She said
Braintree has consistently awarded permits only to those politically
connected or to active or retired police officers.
 
Flynn said figures show the department does not restrict the issuing
of permits.  Department figures show 53 percent of those holding
protection of life and property permits in 1990 were police officers,
retired officers, or auxilary officers.  Twenty-eight percent of those
holding such licenses were not police-related and 19 percent were
private employees doing security or police related work.
 
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
Received: by mts-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA10038; Fri, 2 Aug 91 12:22:31 -0700
Received: by mail.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.910703)
	id AA03095; Fri, 2 Aug 91 15:14:16 -0400
Errors-To: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Precedence: bulk
Received: from PAVLOVA.BBN.COM by mail.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.910703)
	id AA03076; Fri, 2 Aug 91 15:14:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9108021914.AA03076@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Received: by PAVLOVA.BBN.COM id aa23730; 2 Aug 91 14:02 EDT
To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu
Cc: gonzalez@BBN.COM
Subject: GUN PERMIT RULE CHALLENGED IN BRAINTREE MASS (from Usenet)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 91 14:59:03 -0400
From: gonzalez@BBN.COM

    
    private citizens have no buisness carrying heaters around.
    
    if the coppers aren't protecting you well enough, bring the
    heat to city hall and make them fix the problem.
    
    to think you are just going to shoot all the baddies is a
    lot of muddleheaded crap..
    

    	Yes, folks, let's get the coppers to provide more protection with
    	smaller city budgets and smaller numbers of police officers.
    
    	Why would anyone want to have the means of self-protection against
    	violent crime when it's only our lives at stake, after all?
    
    	It's a choice, like anything else.

    
    well, then, lets have lynch law n' shootouts in the streets
    like they do in Afghanistan...
    
    lets slap leather every time we get offended by some idjit passerby..
    
    sanitation dept can police up the corpses, guess it is easier than 
    all the arrest and fair trial nonsense..
    

    
    	Let's not.
    
    	Instead, let's say that if you'd rather die at the hands of a
    	violent criminal than to be prepared to defend yourself, it's
    	your choice.
    
    	If I'd rather take the initiative to try to save my own life 
    	(and to save my family) in the event of a violent attack, it's 
    	*my* choice.
    
    	See?  The logical leap to the far end of the galaxy wasn't
    	necessary.
    

Re: heaters and lynch law

It is only fair to point out that in the days of slapping leather and
the too-quick sword people were generally a *lot* politer to each other.

Fair trials stopped being fair when lawyers got smart enough to get the
perps off *even if they were caught in the act*.  Pfui.

-d

    RAH,
    
    The police are not there to protect you, they are their to protect
    society as a whole.  Their have been several court cases where people
    sued, because of poor response time, or police unwillingness to get 
    involved before a murder happened, and the fact that police are not
    here to protect an individual has gotten the cases dismissed.  
    
    I live in an older, neighborhood in Colorado Springs.  The response
    time with a substation on the west side was over 7 minutes for an
    emergency call.  They are closing the substation and emergency response
    will be going up to 13 minutes.  I fortunately have the right to defend
    my family in any way I see fit in this state, and I make that choice.  
    
    Meg

    it's a major rathole, but Rah's opinions don't overturn the 2nd
    amendment.

>             <<< Note 83.463 by BTOVT::THIGPEN_S "feet of clay" >>>>

>    it's a major rathole, but Rah's opinions don't overturn the 2nd
>    amendment.

    Thanks Sara for voicing my thoughts....

    I'm not sure why Rah is upset with my choice of whether or not to carry 
a gun, but I will respect his/her opinion not to carry a firearm. I am not 
licensed to carry a concealed weapon, not do I own one to carry if I did, 
But set foot inside my house with intent to harm my family or I and it 
will different story. Once again, responsible gun owners are being painted 
as some kind of cowboy out of the old west who would rather shoot than 
talk. It just ain't so, no matter how much folks with an anti gun opinion 
will tell you it is. 

    As a citizen, I pay police to do their job, but I also realise they 
will not always be around to assist me when I need it. I am perfectly 
comfortable with the thought that I might have to help myself if/when the 
time comes to do so.....

BTW, FWIT, I am not a member of the NRA, GOAL, or similar organizations, 
only a citizen who believes I have a right to defend myself and a duty to 
protect my family.

    Vic H

This belongs in the rathole, but hey, c'mon folks; I've never seen so many
people respond to Robert since he started noting as RAH instead of Holt.
Don't let him push yer buttons...

DougO

    
    they can decide fer themselves whether to be offended or not..

Yes, Bob, I know.  But the chain jerking has gone on long enough, to
which I can take offense, if *I* choose.  Which I did.

DougO

    
    so, to disagree with you is now deemed as chainjerking and is 
    therefore offensive..
    
    i'm mortified..
    

    Thanks, Doug, I thought that hit-and-run style seemed familiar.

re:.469

	Nope,  Disagreement is fine.

	Style is what makes it a chain-yank.


						--D

    
    
    	re: .457 (RAH, alias Bob Holt)
    
    	Bob, how come you lost knowledge of grammar and spelling
    	when you changed nodes?
    
    	(or, was that to change your writing style?)
    
    						nancy b.
    

    	RE: .471  nancy b.
    
    	> Bob, how come you lost knowledge of grammar and spelling
    	> when you changed nodes?
    
    	He's using "Soapbox-speak" - it's a broken English dialect 
    	that is politically correct over there.  
    
    	It's basically the noting equivalent of wearing "colors"... :-)

Oh, now I see.  To be politically correct over in Soapbox, you have to
pretend to be an uneducated drip whose native language isn't English.
No wonder I didn't care for the climate...  :-)

-d

    back to Nancy's original entry:
    	Isn't it interesting that permits were described as going mainly to
    those who were "politically connected"?  Is this the way a democratic
    government ought to serve the people?  If a citizen is honorable,
    competent in the use of arms, and knowledgable of the responsibilities
    which accompany bearing potentially lethal force, WHY should the
    authorities be able to arbitrarily abridge hir right of self defense?
    {a right is meaningless without the means to implement it.}
		[dale]

    
    re -.1
    
    >If a citizen is honorable,competent in the use of arms, and knowledgable 
    >of the responsibilities which accompany bearing potentially lethal force, 
    >WHY should the authorities be able to arbitrarily abridge hir right of 
    >self defense?
    
    what self defense needs do honorable citizens have? should police
    be expected to provide this? i think they are. if they aren't,
    why not? because the citizens cop out and think whats the use? 
    
    hey its your gummint, you pay for it, make it respond. lord knows
    you can get outrayyged about untakeable nights... follow up and
    make the coppahs do their jobs and you won't need or want to 
    pack iron... 
    
    

    Bob,
    
    If I give the police that much power who is going to protect me from
    them?  Thanks, but I will live without having a 24 hour a day bodyguard
    in the neighborhood with someone watching over him, who is watched by
    some one who is, well you get the idea.  Besides the only person I ever
    knew personally who intentionally misused a hand gun was the police
    officer who was the abusive husband of my best friends sister.  Cops
    are humyn beings too you know.  
    
    Also as you well know my deer gentlmyn, the courts have already
    determined that the police are resonsible for the safety of society at
    large, not this little womyn.
    
    Meg

    Bob, in three words, it's _your_ ass. 

 Bob trusts the very same people who hassle him for driving a junky old
pickup truck to save him from marauding hooligans. As they say, there's
no accounting for taste (or illogic).

Bob, the people you trust to save you (the coppers) will be glad to save
you.  After you call them up and tell them you've just been shot by a
burglar, they'll do their very best to keep you from dying.  They will
not, however, make any attempt whatever to turn back the clock to before
you were shot so they can protect you from being shot.

As Dana Sys, it's _your_ ass.

-d

 Maybe Bob's ass is not all that much of a priority to Bob?!!

    rea .475
    with a cop/client ratio of ~10,000 to one, i'm supposed to rely on
    a police officer to PREVENT violence from befalling me?  How often 
    do You see any policemen during Your daily activities?  
    
    Not to mention that this constitutes a diversion from the primary
    issue i was exposing:
    (warning, intense emotions ahead ...)
    
    [flame on]
    
        IF ONE HAS "CONNECTIONS", GETTING A PERMIT IS NO SWEAT.  IS THAT
    JUSTICE?  WHY IS IT THAT TED KENNEDY CAN HAVE BODY GUARDS THAT CARRY
    _MACHINE_GUNS_, BUT HE DOESN'T WANT ANYONE ELSE (EXCEPT HIS FRIENDS)
    TO BE ABLE TO OWN ANY FIREARMS?  WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE LIVES OF
    POLITICIANS THAT MAKES THEM SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE THAN ANY OF THE REST
    OF US?  I THOUGHT THAT OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE
    ARE ALL EQUAL(ly valuable) UNDER THE LAW!
    
    [flame off]
    
       Bob,
    	Why can't Mr. Kennedy, et. al., rely on (standard) police dept. 
    protection, as You recommend for the rest of us?
    
        Sorry =wn= neighbors, but i happen to consider my well-being to be
    just as important to me, as any hack politician does, regarding hir own.
    	[dale]
    
         
    
    

	What should really offend us, all of us whether we are for or against
	gun control, is that the law can be applied in such a capricious manor.

	Massachusetts law, as I understand it, provides that a person wishing
	to purchase a handgun must obtain a "License to Carry". There is no
	actual provision, in the law, to make the "reason for issuance" a 
	restriction on how the licensee actually carries. However, town by
	town, Chief by Chief, you can be approved or denied on a whim.

	Appropriate for members of this conference to consider, again whether 
	you are pro or con, is that, in many towns, it is MUCH harder for a
	woman to obtain an LTC that for the average white male.

	Application of the law, ANY law, based on an "old boy network" of who
	you are or who you know is WRONG. No argument is possible or logical.

Jim

re: .482
    > in many towns, it is MUCH harder for a woman to obtain an LTC than 
    > for the average white male.
    > Application of the law, ANY law, based on an "old boy network" of who
    > you are or who you know is WRONG. No argument is possible or logical.

Thank You, Jim, for saying what was in my mind, more clearly than i could
    in my agitated state.
    	[dale]
    

                      <<< Note 83.484 by HIGHD::ROGERS >>>


	Your welcome.

	This is the one thing that truly "bugs" me about the application
	of gun laws. It is also one of the reasons I support pre-emptive
	state wide legislation.

	We have a similar situation in Colorado. Depending on where you live
	you may or may not be able to obtain a carry permit. You may or may
	not be able to purchase or possess certain firearms.

	One law applied EQUALLY to ALL people should be	the norm, not the 
	exception. How can anyone argue differently?

Jim    

     <<< Note 83.486 by AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust ..." >>>
>                -< possible state-wide URBAN-oriented policy ? >-

	Would that really happen? The last time a state wide referendum
	was held in Mass on "gun-control" the measure was rather widely
	defeated.

	It IS posssible, but the likelihood is that the non-urban 
	representitives have a much better chance of having thier
	voice heard.

	This is what happened in Florida, which passed such legislation
	a year and a half ago (and BTW, has seen a steady decline in
	murder rates ever since).

Jim

      My goodness. It took you-all that long to realize that ::RAH was
    ::HOLT. The man's style is legendary.


      As to a note back a few about schools not teaching firearm use, 7 out
    of the 8 school districts in my area have rifle teams(wouldn't you know
    it, I live in the one that abstains). These teams compete among
    themselves and through out the state(PA). I have talked to the coaches
    of the various teams, two are women by-the-by, and since the teams were
    formed, around 1952 or so, there has been not ONE(1) firearms related
    accident. Plus, ALL the coaches indicated that all the members of their
    teams were very well behaved kids with good grade averages.


    					Joe

          If you are a female resident of Framingham who would be willing
          to go through the process of trying to get a license to carry for
          protection, please send me mail.

          Getting the license does not mean you will ever have to own a
          gun, by the way!
          (just that you have the *priviledge* to buy one, store one,
          and/or carry one for your protection.)

                                                       nancy b.

    
          If you are ever in a situation where you

               o  apply for a License to Carry
               o  are unfairly denied
               o  want to appeal the decision

          , the following is the document you would file with the clerk of
          the court at your district court.   A lawyer prepared this for
          me, and it could save you some $$ to do it yourself.  (but you
          still probably need a lawyer to represent you.)  The fields which
          need to be replaced are in angle brackets.

                                                       nancy b.


    
                            Commonwealth of Massachusetts



          <county_name>, SS                  <town_name> District Court
                                             Civil Action Number ___

          -----------------------------------------------------------------

          <your_name>
             Plaintiff
             V.       Application for review under Ch. 140 Section 131, MGL

          <your_police_chief's_name>  as he is Chief of Police of the town
          of <your_town>
             Defendant

          -----------------------------------------------------------------

          Now comes, <your_name>, and states that she is not a person
          prohibited from having a license under MGL Chapter 140 Section
          131, that she is a suitable person to be so licensed, and has a
          proper purpose for obtaining said license.

          Plaintiff applied to defendant for said license under the
          provisions of Chapter 140 Section 131, and on <denial_date>,
          plaintiff received notice that defendant denied said license.

          Said denial was arbitrary, capricious, without foundation, and
          otherwise an abuse of discretion.

          Plaintiff appeals said denial to this court, under the provisions
          of MGL Chapter 140 Section 131 and requests this court order
          defendant to issue said license.

                                              <your_signature>
                                             
                                              <your_name>
                                              <address>
                                              <phone_number>

This really does, a Roak pointed out, belong here.


             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA5:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 56.159           Self-Defense for Women: What's Best?            159 of 160
JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ "DILLIGAFF"                       35 lines   6-SEP-1991 06:01
                 -< Guns are dangerous for the user as well ! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But, there are very many situations where a gun
>    can have tragic consequences. 

Jerome,	Yes there are. But there are FAR more instances where a gun has proved
	to be invaluable defense.

	Stats for the U.S. tell the tale.

	All of the criminal uses of a firearm in this country add up to 
	aproximately 350,000 cases in a year. Add to that the accidental
	daeths and injuries (1200 and 30,000 respectively) and you have
	a "bad" occurence total of under 400,000. It has been estimated
	(by a Professor of Criminology at Florida State University) that
	firearms are used somewhere between 650,000 and 1 MILLION times
	per year to prevent a crime. This same study showed that you were
	less likely to be injured if you resisted a criminal with a firearm 
	than if you did NOTHING to resist (nothing means you did not fight
	back, run away, or even call for help).

	That still leaves firearms on the side of the "greater good".

	I will anticipate your response concerning the difference in violent
	crime rates related to guns (particularly murder) in the U.S. and the 
	U.K. The rate of violent crime in the U.K. has ALWAYS been below that
	of the U.S. The availibility of firearms has not had an effect on this
	difference. When guns were just as available in Britain as they were
	in the U.S. the murder rate in Britain was STILL lower by a dramatic
	degree. There is something else at work here, some other reason why
	the British are less prone to violent action. We need to find this
	difference. Only then can we hope to apply it to the U.S. and reduce
	the carnage we are seeing in this country.

>    I would also be concerned at the temperament of the intended gun owner.
>    A recommendation from your doctor *and* a psychologist should be
>    necessary to get a licence to own a gun.
 
	In this country, and I am sure it is the same in the U.K., you can not
	be denied a basic right unless you have been found to be mentally
	incompetent in a court of law. The simple opinion of a doctor is
	not enough. This rule of law applies to things like involuntary
	commitment in a mental hospital, other forms of incarceration and,
	in this country, the ownership of a firearm.

>    I think that guns should also be strictly controlled, and every single 
>    bullet be accountable for.  

	I realize that you are not very knowledgable concerning firearms, but
	understand that "strict control" only applies to those that are given
	to obeying laws. You proposal disarms those that have no intent of
	ever using a firearm in a criminal manner and leaves them helpless
	against those that choose not to follow society's rules.

	As to "accounting for every bullet", your idea is totally impractical.
	You could possible control the access to "factory" ammunition, but 
	there is no way to control "reloading". I reload (as do most serious
	competitive shooters) my own ammunition. I buy bullets (bullets are
	properly defined as the lead projectile), powder and primers. By reusing
	the fired cases I can save a GREAT deal of monoey and can therefore 
	shoot more.

>The gun owner, as a requirement of the 
>    licence should have to do a certain amount of range firing every week.

	You would then deny those that are housebound or disabled the ability
	to possess a firearm for self-defense? Surely the weakest members of
	our society have the greatest need for this protection.

>    This is all academic here in the UK because guns are unlikely to ever
>    be given the free availabitlity that there is in the states.
 
	And, quite frankly, you are suffering for it. Violent crime and 
	particularly gun related crime in the U.K. is on the rise. It is
	now at far higher levels than before your restrictive gun laws were
	put into effect. Check out the data yourself. Guncontrol hasn't, doesn't
	and won't work. The stats are there for anyone to see.

>    This is why a still advocate a "weapon" that does not permanently harm
>    the attacker, such as Mace/CS.
 
	But the same politicians that brought you strict gun control also
	forbid the ownership of these defensive tools. Doesn't that suggest
	something to you? When someone makes a serious error of judgement in
	one area, I tend to view subsequent judgements in related areas with
	a jaundiced eye, don't you?

Jim                                      

    "bullets are properly defined as the lead projectile"
    
    I was taught that the lead part is the "slug"; the whole thing
    (cartridge case, powder, [copper-jacketed] lead lump) is the bullet.
    
    						Ann B.

Nope, Ann, the complete assembly is a cartridge.

The projectile, whether it be lead or some high-tech assembly of lead
with a copper jacket or teflon or what-have-you, is a bullet.

The stuff that makes the bang is the propellant.

The stuff that makes the propellant go bang is the primer.

the somewhat-cup-shaped container that holds the primer, propellant,
and bullet is a casing, commonly called by shooters the "brass."

In certain modern cartridges, the bullet is held in the casing by a
slot-sided cup-shaped object whose purpose is to isolate the bullet
from the rifling in the barrel, thereby preventing even the slightest
deformation of the bullet.  This object, which is shed as the bullet
leaves the muzzle is a sabot.

-d

         <<< Note 83.493 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>

>    I was taught that the lead part is the "slug"; the whole thing
>    (cartridge case, powder, [copper-jacketed] lead lump) is the bullet.
 
Ann,	You were taught incorrectly. The detail in .494 is correct.

	(sorry I'm just a stickler for details)   
    						
Jim

Re: <<< Note 83.494 by SMURF::CALIPH::binder "Sine titulo" >>>

>>The stuff that makes the bang is the propellant.

AKA "Powder"

>>the somewhat-cup-shaped container that holds the primer, propellant,
>>and bullet is a casing, commonly called by shooters the "brass."

AKA "Case"

    
    I'm still waiting fer someone to explain how pouring yet more guns
    into society will make it safer from crime/tyranny/accidents/wackos..
    

    New guns don't get 'poured into society'. They are bought by private
    citizens. Those citizens _choose_ to use them safely, or in unsafe
    ways. They can choose to use them only for defense, or to commit
    crimes. They may collect them for esthetic reasons, or for hunting,
    or for target shooting. 
    
    The real issue is what the person with a gun _chooses_ to do. Why
    do the so-called 'anti-crime' people spend so much time arguing
    against inanimate objects, and so little time and effort on helping
    people learn to make intelligent, responsible choices?

    re .498
    
    I'm still waiting to hear how taking firearms from ordinary citizens
    will improve the quality of life.  They didn't have ANY guns in Nero's
    time.  Were the citizens of that era less oppressed or more safe than
    now?  This nonsense about "everything will be better when no one has
    guns" smacks of kindergarten logic.  Don't let the children have
    anything sharp, they may hurt themselves or each other.
    
    Moreover, RAH, it is not possible to remove all guns from society.  It
    is only _barely_ possible to remove them from the law-abiding, which
    can't be expected to help much with the problem of violence.  As has
    been said about nuclear energy, the genie is out of the bottle and
    there's no way to stuff it back in.  Anyone with moderate mechanical
    skills can make a functioning firearm.  If there are no legitimate
    sources for them, the same underground industry that supplied booze in
    during prohibition (and cocaine now) will satisfy the market, but only
    for the BAD-GUYS.  What sense does it make to allow only the criminals
    to be armed?  What sense does it make to insist that honest women be
    defenseless against depredation?
    	[dale]