Conference rdvax::grateful

>  This note is for the discussion of gun control and related issues.

	I think guns are great for control!  IF everyone had one, the 
	amount of crime would go way down.  I've often lamented that it
	is a shame that we can't wear sidearms at work.  I'm sure I'd
	get a lot better service out of support groups if I was packing
	a 9 mm auto!


	Mostly :-)

	Bob_the_only_non-military_academy_student_selected_for_the_1980_
	All_American_Collegiate_Pistol_Team

Someone mentioned recently that a woman who survived the massacre at Luby's
restaurant, when asked what she thought about gun control after the incident,
said something to the effect that if she had had her handgun in her purse,
she could have shot the gunman herself and saved some lives.

Just thought it was interesting ....

- Dave

re: Note 125.391                      Bummer Note!                       
SCAM::GRADY "tim grady"                              19 lines   5-NOV-1991 12:51
                           -< Handguns are obscene. >-

>    I'm not opposed to sportsman's guns like hunting rifles and such.  It's
>    the concealable handguns that really irk me.  I think they should be
>    banned completely, and nothing on earth can convince me that the NRA
>    propaganda about 'guns don't kill people' is anything but pure
>    bullsh*t.  There is no legitimate purpose for a handgun, IMHO.  The
>    Brady bill is too weak for my taste.

The problem is that you cannot ban guns.  You can pass laws trying to ban them
but they will not go away.  Laws only affect people who follow them.

		Dave

> <<< Note 210.3 by OLDTMR::STANLEY "You can't let go, you can't hold on..." >>>
>                    -< Banning drugs didn't work either... >-
>
>The problem is that you cannot ban guns.  You can pass laws trying to ban them
>but they will not go away.  Laws only affect people who follow them.
>
>		Dave

    I think I have to disagree here.  I believe the British and the Japanese 
    have both banned hand guns. I believe they have consistently shown a
    dramaticly lower gun-related crime rate for decades.  DECADES.  I don't
    believe it is a coincidence.  I have also heard from the media that
    there is a direct statistical corelation between gun control, or the
    lack thereof, and casualty rates due to violent crime.  I'm going to
    the library with my daughter tonight, so maybe I can look it up.
    
    Frankly, without any intention of hurting anyone's feelings, I am
    opposed to all guns.  I have always believed (like since early grade
    school) in total non-violence, and guns have no other constructive
    purpose except violence.  We don't NEED them, and the harm they inflict
    far outweighs any benefits to the sports-minded.
    
    It may be true that guns don't kill people, but without guns, fewer
    people will be killed.  Ban them.  Stick to fishing.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. Please spare me the rather lame example of what would I do if
    someone broke into my house and tried to hurt me and my kids.  The
    answer is: run.  What if we can't?  Well, what if I can't shoot him? 
    Same odds. Actually, running is easier, and survival odds are probably
    better.  Hero scenarios seldom pan out in reality as well as they do on
    paper.
    

    
    
    Whatever the case is, I don't believe that the answer is 'let EVERYONE
    carry a gun to defend themselves.'
    
    Dave

re:                  <<< Note 210.4 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>

>    I think I have to disagree here.

Fair enough.  I think we can agree to disagree.  :-)  By the way, I was quite
anti-gun until a few years ago when a good friend converted me.  

		Dave

re 125.397                      Bummer Note!                        397 of 397

>    ...i just get  so damned pissed at these kids carrying guns into school
>    and shooting at each other...someday I'm gonna learn not to launch into

Hey now Tim;

As an old-time liberal ;^) myself, I've generally been pro- gun control;
I'm just trying to understand where guns fit in with American culture.

As we've been discussing somewhere else in the notesfile, this is a violent
culture.  If the kids didn't bring guns into school, they'd bring something
else.  I'd like to look at what makes this society so violent that people
glorify weaponry, or need to exercise power over others with whatever's
available.

-fwiw
 Dave

SCAM::GRADY 
    
    >I have also heard from the media that
    >there is a direct statistical corelation between gun control, or the
    >lack thereof, and casualty rates due to violent crime.  I'm going to
    >the library with my daughter tonight, so maybe I can look it up.
    
    This isn't true.  Statistics show the direct opposite.
    
    >Frankly, without any intention of hurting anyone's feelings, I am
    >opposed to all guns.  I have always believed (like since early grade
    >school) in total non-violence, and guns have no other constructive
    >purpose except violence.  We don't NEED them, and the harm they inflict
    >far outweighs any benefits to the sports-minded.
    
    That would be true if this was a perfect world and if humanity was a
    totally non-violent species.  It isn't and we aren't.
    You may choose to be a Concientious Objector and stay out of wars but
    someone (or many someone's) may still have to fight in order to defend
    us.  You are free to choose ...  but so are we.  To ignore danger is
    to invite it.  And lets not forget that an armed populace is the best
    protection the Constitution can have.
    
    Further... it isn't your place to determine what is best for the sports
    minded.  Some sportmen would consider that attitude to be out of line.
    
>    It may be true that guns don't kill people, but without guns, fewer
>    people will be killed.  Ban them.  Stick to fishing.
    
     You stick to fishing, tim... thats your choice... My choices are my
    own to make.
    
>    P.S. Please spare me the rather lame example of what would I do if
>    someone broke into my house and tried to hurt me and my kids.  The
>    answer is: run.  What if we can't?  Well, what if I can't shoot him? 
>    Same odds. Actually, running is easier, and survival odds are probably
>    better.  Hero scenarios seldom pan out in reality as well as they do on
>    paper.
    
     Death scenarios do to.  You may choose to take your chances (and bet
    your wife and chidren's lives) on running.  Some of us just aren't in
    that good shape. :-)
    
    I know... some think we deserve to die... we, however, do not agree.
    
    mary

AWECIM::RUSSO                                         
    
>    Whatever the case is, I don't believe that the answer is 'let EVERYONE
>    carry a gun to defend themselves.'
    
     I've read that crime rate have dropped way, way down in places that
    have mandated gun ownership, Dave.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people who wrote this knew what they were doing.

Geoff

    re Goeff
    
    	Yah,, they did. But it seems likely that most of their
    "good" work will be undone in the next few years..
    
    	My only problem with Gun Control is that that measn the government
    will be the only ones allowed to own guns. I'm not sure which is
    scarier,.. facing a would be robber/raper/killer unarmed,.. or facing
    our own government "unarmed"
    
    	When will they come and take me away?
    
    							/
    

>    	My only problem with Gun Control is that that measn the government
>    will be the only ones allowed to own guns. I'm not sure which is
>    scarier,.. facing a would be robber/raper/killer unarmed,.. or facing
>    our own government "unarmed"


	Facing the government unarmed is 1000 times scarier from this humble 
person's point of view.

	Geoff    

>	Facing the government unarmed is 1000 times scarier from this humble 
>person's point of view.

This is the main reason that I am no longer anti-gun.

		Dave

The attached is reprinted with absolutely noones permission


Believe it if you need it.

Below is the text of the recent article from National Review if anyone
is interested.

                           HOW TO MAKE
                            THEIR DAY

Here are a few things we all know about handguns: they are useless for
self-defense; their owners are more likely to kill relatives than assailants;
they tempt the law-abiding to violence.

False, false, and false.

           DON B. KATES JR. & PATRICIA TERRELL HARRIS

ADVOCATES of gun control generally represent the debate as one between cool,
rational defenders of civil order and ignorant rednecks inspired by
half-acknowledged prejudices.  In fact social-science research is increasingly
on the side of the "rednecks."  And the arguments for banning guns are mostly
myths.*

     Myth #1: Most murderers are ordinary, law-abiding citizens, who kill a
relative or acquaintance in a moment of anger only because a gun is available. 
In fact, every study of homicide shows the overwhelming majority of murderers
are career criminals, people with lifelong histories of violence, sometimes
irrational, sometimes acquisitive.  The typical murderer has a prior criminal
history averaging at least six years, with four major felony arrests.  He also
is likely to be a substance abuser with a record of traffic and/or gun
accidents.  Indeed, even people who accidentally kill with guns tend to have
similar felony records and histories of substance abuse and auto accidents.  In
short, these are aberrant people characterized by a consistent indifference to
human life (including their own).

Our present laws acknowledge this by banning gun ownership by ex-felons,
juveniles, and the mentally impaired.  These restrictions fail not because they
are too narrow, but because they are inadequately enforced.

     Myth #2: The public supports "gun control." Fifty per cent of American
householders have guns, and 78 per cent of all Americans say in national surveys
that they would use a gun for self-defense.  Americans do support prudent
controls on access to guns (e.g., by ex-felons), but groups advocating "gun
control" want much broader prohibitions.   For example, Handgun Control Inc.
(HCI), which claims to support only moderate controls,  considers moderate the
gun-control laws in Washington, D.C. That city has effectively outlawed
self-defense with guns.  It prohibits handgun sales, and allows hunters to have
rifles and shotguns only if kept unloaded and disassembled.

     While Americans support gun registration in opinion polls,  abstract
endorsement becomes fanatical opposition when HCI and even more extreme
supporters of registration avow (or are forced to admit) that it is only a first
step toward their goal of confiscation.  HCI-backed proposals to ban handgun
sales and confiscate all handguns were rejected even in two of the most liberal
states, California in 1982 and Massachusetts in 1976.

     Myth #3: Gun owners are ignorant rednecks given to senseless violence. 
Studies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated
and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.  To judge by their applications
for permits to carry guns at all times, the following are (or were) gun owners:
Eleanor Roosevelt,  Joan Rivers, Dianne Feinstein, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Sid
Caesar, John Lindsay, Robert Goulet, Leland DuPont, Arthur Godfrey, Michael
Korda, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sammy Davis Jr.,  Lyman Bloomingdale, Donald Trump,
John Foster Dulles, and John, Laurance, David, Winthrop,  and Nelson
Rockefeller.

     An early academic analysis (still relied upon by gun-control advocates)
that labeled gun owners "Violence prone" turns out to have been based on survey
questions that addressed only willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. 
In other words, the analyst confused good citizenship with violence.  Later
surveys show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of
police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc.

     Myth #4: Protection against crime is the job of the police.   Slogans like
"To protect and serve" contribute to the false impression that the main function
of the police is to protect individuals.  But the U.S. has only five hundred
thousand police officers; dividing that number by three shifts per day, and
adjusting for vacation leave, desk duty,  etc., leaves only about 75,000 police
on patrol at any one time to protect 250 million Americans.  Their numbers are
wholly inadequate to provide individual protection to everyone.

     Myth #5: The Second Amendment protects only the states' right to arm a
militia.  This interpretation appeared only in the twentieth century. 
Significantly,  the two earliest commentaries on the Second Amendment, which
were before Congress when it passed the Bill of Rights, described it as
guaranteeing to the people "their right to keep and bear their private arms"
(Tinch Coxe) and "their own arms" (Sam Adams) (emphasis added).

     The Founders were well aware of Aristotle's dictum that free governments
rest on free men armed, while basic to tyranny is "mistrust of the people; hence
they deprive them of arms." To James Madison, author of the Second Amendment,
"The advantage that the Americans have over every other nation is that they are
armed."

     The Founders put today's NRA mossbacks to shame.  "One loves to possess
arms," Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Washington on June 19, 1796.  On another
occasion, Jeffer- son wrote his 15-year-old nephew: "Games played with the ball,
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character
on the mind. [But the gun] gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the
mind.  Let your gun therefore be the companion of your walks."

     Myth #6: Guns are not useful for self-defense.  Advocates of gun control
have been so certain of this that they have paid for several national surveys to
prove it.  Awkwardly, every study has shown the opposite: handguns are used more
often in repelling crimes than in committing them.  While handguns are used in
about 581,000 crimes yearly, they are used to repel about 645,000 crimes.

     A related argument is that handguns kill six (or even 42) times as many
household members as burglars.  This comparison is deceptive on several grounds. 
First, about half of shootings by one spouse or the other are defensive-killings
of homicidal husbands by victimized wives.  So it misleadingly characterizes
many cases in which guns save innocent lives as gun murders.

     Also, by focusing on homes the statistic excludes the numerous instances in
which shopkeepers kill robbers.  When the number of shopkeepers and abused wives
who shoot criminals is counted, the figure for defensive killings increases by
about 1,000 per cent.

     HCI harps on fatal accidents and murders in the home without mentioning
that the former are generally perpetrated by irresponsible aberrants and the
latter overwhelmingly so.  Disarming the more than 98 per cent of gun owners who
are law-abiding and responsible will not disarm the 2 per cent of aberrants. 
Even if it did, lack of handguns would not prevent the killing of wives and
children with other weapons (like the knife or the far deadlier shotgun).

     Perhaps the most disingenuous ploy is to downplay suicides, which
constitute the majority of household handgun deaths in the comparison.  Even if
we agree that stopping suicide is a le- gitimate use of state power, it is silly
to argue that banning a single method would have a significant effect.  The most
obvious alternative, the long gun, is used in roughly 50 per cent of current gun
suicides.

     Myth #7: Resistance with a gun will get you injured or killed.   According
to gun-controllers, armed women frequently have their guns taken away and used
against them.  And so HCI advises submission: "The best way to keep you alive
[is to]  put up no defense-give them what they want or run." National victim
data suggest otherwise.   While victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare
hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit (though far
less likely to be raped or robbed), victims who resist with a gun are only half
as likely to be injured as those who take HCI's advice. (We emphasize that a gun
does not make resistance safe regardless of circumstances.  Perhaps a person
with the foresight to own a gun is more likely to have pondered in advance the
question of when and how to resist.)

     Myth #8: Other countries have reduced violence by banning guns.   This
claim cannot be true, since low European violence long preceded gun restriction.

     Restrictive gun laws were largely pioneered, not in Europe, but in various
high-violence American states, beginning in the late 1800s.  The measures
failed-violence rates continued to rise-and they were largely repealed after
World War 1. European gun bans began at about the same time ours were being
repealed.  Moreover, they were a response not to ordinary crime (which was low),
but to the political crime and unrest of the era.   Even as gun control failed
to curb ordinary violence in this country, so the European countries that banned
guns in response to political crime have nevertheless suffered far more such
crime than has America.  Ironically, the only "gun control" in place when
English crime fell from its appalling late-eighteenth-century high to its
idyllic early-twentieth century low was that the police could not carry guns. 
The inevitable conclusion is that the determinants of violence are socioeconomic
and cultural factors rather than the availability of any particular deadly
instrument.

     Moreover, the emphasis on changing gun laws is fundamentally diversionary. 
With prosecutors, judges, and prisons swamped by murderers, rapists,  robbers,
etc., the violence-prone know they risk very little real penalty for illegal
possession of a gun.  In the premier criminological study of gun-control
enforcement, Bendis and Balkin conclude: "It is very possible that if gun laws
do potentially reduce gun-related crime, the present laws are all that is needed
if they are enforced.  What good would stronger laws do when the courts have
demonstrated that they will not enforce them?".


     *    Those interested in further exploring these issues should refer to the
          just-published definitive work, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
          America (1991) by Gary Kleck.  See also, Kates, "The Value of
          Civilian Arms Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or Defense against
          Crime," in American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 18, #3 (1991).

          Mr. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, is the editor
          of Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy and author
          of "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution," both available from
          the Pacific Research Institute.  Miss Harris, a medical editor
          living in northern New Jersey, is a past contributor to Handgun
          Control Inc.


Pages 30 to 32
NATIONAL  REVIEW
OCTOBER  21,  1991

Interesting article, Geoff.

I still have a little trouble with the reasoning put forth by anti-gun
control'ers as to why they oppose a handgun purchase waiting period, though.
I've heard all the arguments ... they just seem kind of extreme.  I don't
see why a person with a record of violent, unlawful behavior should be allowed
to purchase killing machines ... ?

- Dave

>I don't
>see why a person with a record of violent, unlawful behavior should be allowed
>to purchase killing machines ... ?

They shouldn't, but the government is about as effective at
"controlling" the availability of guns in this country as it is at
controlling the availability of cocaine and heroin. 

Should the ownership of guns be government regulated at all?  Is 
owning a gun a citizen's right, or is it a privilege that must be 
earned and renewed periodically like a drivers licence?

RE:     <<< Note 210.11 by STAR::SALKEWICZ "It missed... therefore, I am " >>>
   
   >    	My only problem with Gun Control is that that measn the government
   > will be the only ones allowed to own guns. I'm not sure which is
   > scarier,.. facing a would be robber/raper/killer unarmed,.. or facing
   > our own government "unarmed"
    
     
 Excellent point /,

The day when the gubmit. (read Armed services, police.) are the only ones
who possess guns is the day when the US becomes a true police state.
And we the people might as well chuck th eentire Constitution out the 
window. 

Shawn

re:            <<< Note 210.15 by VMPIRE::CLARK "puzzlin' evidence" >>>
   
>Interesting article, Geoff.
 
 I agree, great article Geoff

>I still have a little trouble with the reasoning put forth by anti-gun
>control'ers as to why they oppose a handgun purchase waiting period, though.

  - Dave, the reason I am against a waiting period, (at purchase) is because
when you apply for a permit, they run a criminal check, a check for mental
illness, and if Metzenbaum has his way in the future they'll run an F.B.I.
check. By the time they finish this you've waited months just to be licensed.

Now when you go to purchase, you'll have to wait even longer, to be checked
again. (re: Metzenbaum's bill) WHY? you already went thru all that.
Beside criminal very really purchase gun leaglly, so the only people who
would be subject to a waiting period would be legal owners.
Let the LICENSE PROCESS be the waiting period. Which BTW I'm all for.


>I've heard all the arguments ... they just seem kind of extreme.  I don't
>see why a person with a record of violent, unlawful behavior should be allowed
>to purchase killing machines ... ?


 They shouldn't. They why a strong licensing process would help, granted
it won't help alot, because as I stated before criminals don't usually buy
from gun shop, but rather on the street. 

Shawn

ps As rfb said early (in a way) I care more about the people in this file
than a arguing about differences of opinion. But I think
those interested can discuss this issue without blowing up and resorting
to ::SOAPBOX tactics, such as name calling, and avoiding the issue.
So throw on your asbestos underware and join in, even you liberials ;-)

>  <<< Note 210.10 by AIMHI::KELLER "The BoR, Void Where Prohibited by law" >>>
>
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
>The people who wrote this knew what they were doing.
    
    Yabut, that's not what they wrote, they wrote this:
    
    "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."
    
    This 'Militia' is referenced in several other places in the
    Constitution as well.  There is nothing in the Constitution that
    provides for the unregulated right of individual citizens to keep and
    bear arms, and I don't believe there should be.  People generally tend
    to take this part of the 2nd amendment out of context, and I don't
    think that's fair.
    
    At the very least, it should be VERY hard to get a gun permit.  Much
    harder than it is to, say, get a fishing license or even a driver's
    license.  That is NOT the case today.  The guy who shot Reagan, and
    more importantly, Jim Brady, had no problems getting a gun, despite the 
    fact that he had a long term history of psychiatric problems.  The guy who 
    shot Lennon had no problem either.
    
    To get a driver's license, you have to demonstrate the skills required to 
    drive an automobile and take a written test.  In most states, to own a 
    gun, you have to do nothing more than sign your name, if that.  That's
    not right.
    
    Gun related violence is a known problem, a very BIG problem, and none of the
    anti-gun-control ideas that the NRA supports have worked.  It's time to
    try the other approach.  I suggest that it could not possibly get much
    worse.  At least we could get the M-16's, AK-47's, ouzi's, bazooka's
    and God knows what else off the streets!
    
    Guns are dangerous, and ought to be heavily regulated, at the federal,
    state AND muncipal levels.  Assault rifles and handguns, automatics and
    semi-automatics should be flat illegal, IMHO.
    
    tim
    

    Tim,
    
    	The way I read that sentence,. it does in fact specifically intend
    to guranteee the right of individual citizens to bear arms.
    
    	The "militia" could be nothing more than private citizens gathered
    together under some form of regulation, perhaps self imposed and
    self defined.
    
    	Notice that it also cites the right as being necessary to maintain
    a truly free state. Thats the one point that hits home. If the
    government has the guns,.. then we are not a free state. We are an
    oppressed people, at the mercy of our gun toting government.
    
    							/Bill
    
    PS No personal attack or flaming is intended here,.. I hope thats
       clear.

re:                 <<< Note 210.20 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>
   
>    Yabut, that's not what they wrote, they wrote this:
    
>    "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."
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
Tim,
 
  Yes it says Militia, but then says PEOPLE and besides a Militia as defined
by American Heritage Dictionary is:

  Those who are not members of the regular armed forces, but who are called
to military service in an emergency. 

Therfore that includes any American citizen IMO, it can be said to include
only those eligible for the draft. But anyone can give their service to
the country if they really wish to do so.

    
>    At the very least, it should be VERY hard to get a gun permit.  Much
>    harder than it is to, say, get a fishing license or even a driver's
>   license.  

It should be harder than a driver's or fishing license, yes. But not as 
difficult as it is in alot of states.


>That is NOT the case today.  

In some states it is.

>The guy who shot Reagan, and more importantly, Jim Brady, had no problems 
>getting a gun, despite the fact that he had a long term history of psychiatric 
>problems.  The guy who shot Lennon had no problem either.
    
If I remember correctlly neither obtained the guns through *legal* means.

   > To get a driver's license, you have to demonstrate the skills required to 
   > drive an automobile and take a written test.  In most states, to own a 
   > gun, you have to do nothing more than sign your name, if that.  That's
   > not right.
    
In many states you most definitly have to demonstrate required skills to 
obtain Pistol Permits. Mass is one of these, while in Fla you don't. I feel
you should have to be tested.


>    Gun related violence is a known problem, a very BIG problem, and none of the
>    anti-gun-control ideas that the NRA supports have worked.  It's time to
>    try the other approach.  I suggest that it could not possibly get much
>    worse.  At least we could get the M-16's, AK-47's, ouzi's, bazooka's
>    and God knows what else off the streets!
    
The NRA is not so much anti-gun-control as many believe, they would
just like to see saner gun control bills/laws. None of the NRA ideas
have even been tried. They all getting squashed by anti-gun Lobbyist
because many anti-gun group have huge amounts of $$$ dump into them 
by large Corporations, such as Pepsi, Greenpeace(not really a corp but..)
and several others. 

>   Guns are dangerous, and ought to be heavily regulated, at the federal,
>    state AND muncipal levels.  Assault rifles and handguns, automatics and
>    semi-automatics should be flat illegal, IMHO.    
    
If semi-autos were made illegal, I would lose BOTH of my .22 caliber rifles,
a 30-06, and I would be able to get that shotgun I've been looking at.
 I agree gun are dangerous. I feel that regulation should be controled at the 
federal level ONLY so there would be a standard across the country. But don't 
make it so sane, responible individuals cannot enjoy a sport they love.

Shawn

    Shawn,
    
    It does, however, say that in the context of a WELL REGULATED militia,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms...  It says nothing about
    unregulated personal use, which is basically what we have today.  Far
    more states have little or no regulation beyond a form to fill out,
    then are closely regulated like D.C.  And why do you suppose D.C. has
    become so tight?  I would say two reasons: a.) the Brady bill and its
    supporters, who live there, and b.) an incredibly high violent crime rate.
    
    I'm just about certain that the guy who shot Lennon just walked into a
    store in a state other than New York (where Lennon was shot) and then
    just carried it into NYC and shot 'em.  That's why there is a need for
    both state and federal gun control laws, to prevent interstate 'leaks'
    like that.  I also recall something about Hinkley just buying a gun at
    a pawn store, but I'm not sure about that.  The fact is, most criminals
    don't have to get guns illegally, they can buy them legally if then
    know the right state to go to, or they hit the right gun show.
    
    As for the NRA, it is just about the BIGGEST lobby group in the
    country, so I have a hard time envisioning them being 'squashed' by
    'anti-gun' lobbyists.  They're HUGE - much, much bigger than all of the
    gun control lobby groups put together.
    
    

If you read the Federalist Papers or other documents of the times, the militia 
was defined as all men between the ages of 18 and 45 not in active military 
duty.

In all other amentdments to the Bill Of Rights, "The People" mean people in 
general, not a group of people. How can it mean something different in the 2nd 
amendment.

I think that instant background checks should be put in place to check for 
criminal behavior. 

The way the law reads now, at least in The People's Republic of Massachusetts, 
Whether or not you get your handgun permit is strictly up to the chief of 
police in your home town. If for any reason he doesn't like you, you will not 
get a permit.

If the 2nd amendment of the Bill Of Rights is abolished then all of the bill 
of rights will not be worth the paper that it is printed on. The 2nd is the 
amendment that guarentees that the rest of our rights will not be revoked.

Geoff

From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 14 Jul 91 20:14:34 GMT
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.
 
In article <1991Jul11.133619.1@vxs.mdcbbs.com> ivler@vxs.mdcbbs.com
(J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com) writes:
>I totally agree that BUSH has let us Second Amendment people down. I will
>support anyone who believe in enforcing *THE ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT*. that
>includes the part that says the right to keep and bear arms *REQUIRES* that
>the person be a member of an organized malitia!!!!
 
First, you need to read the Second Amendment:
 
	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.*
 
There is nothing here about a person being required to be or do anything as
a condition of having the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Second, by law, the militia has two parts, organized and *unorganized*:
 
	These sections are referred to as 10 USC 311.
	-----
	United Stated Code (USC)
 
	TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
 
	Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
 
	  (a) The militia of the United States consists
	of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
	and, except as provided in section 313 of title 
	32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
	made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
	zens of the United States and of female citizens
	of the United States who are commissioned of-
	ficers of the National Guard.
	  (b) The classes of the militia are--
	    (1) the organized militia, which consists of
	  the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
	  and
	    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
	  of the members of the militia who are not
	  members of the National Guard or the Naval
	  Militia.
 
As you can see, most male adults (on this forum at least) are members of the
unorganized militia, including, probably, yourself.
 
Third, before you start arguing about the meaning of the Second Amendment,
you should read something about it.  I recommend:
 
	"The Embarrassing Second Amendment" by Sanford Levinson,
	in "The Yale Law Journal", vol: 99, 1989, pp 637-659.
 
Dr. Sanford Levinson is a respected Constitutional law professor, who has
nothing to do with the NRA, and would otherwise favor gun control.
 
You might also read what the founding fathers had to say about this, such
as:
 
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel.  Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined . . . The great object
is that every man be armed"
	- Patrick Henry, quoted in ed. Morton Borden, The Antifederalist
	Papers, vol 3
 
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements"
	- Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Constitution, Third Draft
 
". . . Arms in the hands of citizens to be used at individual discretion .
.. . in private self defense"
	- John Adams, from A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government
	of the United States of America against the Attack of M. Turgot
 
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
	- James Madison
 
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
	- T. Jefferson.
 
 
 
* The Second Amendment is sometimes shown with two more commas, one after
"Militia" and one after "Arms".  There is some controversy over which
version is correct.  I favor the version above (based on what I've read),
but I'm open minded on the question.  I don't think it affects the meaning
either way.
-- 
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	    I am the NRA	  Steven R. Fordyce
Not all activists are leftists ... We have an energy policy: the free market.

In 1987 there were 5 gun related homicides in Japan, 9 in Britain, 9000
in the US. Even consitering cultural differences this speaks from pretty 
clearly. I admit to being biased on the side of gun control, I was neutral
until I found myself on the wrong end of one. ;-( The dude wasn't what I would 
call a criminal, he started the scuffle then when I got a lucky shot in decided
to raise the stakes. Then there's the lady behind where I live now that 
threatened to get her gun if a couple of kids that where playing in 'her yard'
didn't leave. These were kids for god's sake... and the yard was a strip of 
grass behind a condo building. Makes me sick and very sad.

I think part of the problem is that people believe that guns are toys. Take 
a walk through a toy store this Chrismas season,(gee dear lets get Bobby the 
new Captain Blasto machine pistol for Christmas). Guns (fake or not) are 
weapons not toys, not tools, they are weapons and weapons have a single 
use, killing.

:-Chuck_who_since_he's_moved_to_colorado_has_tried_to_keep_his_mouth_shut_
on_this_topic

SCAM::GRADY 
    
>    unregulated personal use, which is basically what we have today.  Far
>    more states have little or no regulation beyond a form to fill out,
>    then are closely regulated like D.C.  And why do you suppose D.C. has
>    become so tight?  I would say two reasons: a.) the Brady bill and its
>    supporters, who live there, and b.) an incredibly high violent crime rate.
    
     Tim,
    
    D.C. has the tightest gun control laws in the country and the highest
    crime rate.  That suggests that gun crimes are more prevelent when the
    public is unarmed.  Crimes from illegal guns won't go away by passing
    more laws.
    
>    I'm just about certain that the guy who shot Lennon just walked into a
>    store in a state other than New York (where Lennon was shot) and then
>    just carried it into NYC and shot 'em.  That's why there is a need for
>    both state and federal gun control laws, to prevent interstate 'leaks'
>    like that.  I also recall something about Hinkley just buying a gun at
>    a pawn store, but I'm not sure about that.  The fact is, most criminals
>    don't have to get guns illegally, they can buy them legally if then
>    know the right state to go to, or they hit the right gun show.
    
     I believe you are mistaken, Tim.  It's very difficult to obtain guns
    legally in most places.  It's easy to get them illegally.  That, of
    course, means that only criminals have guns and that is a very
    dangerous situation for everyone.
        
>    As for the NRA, it is just about the BIGGEST lobby group in the
>    country, so I have a hard time envisioning them being 'squashed' by
>    'anti-gun' lobbyists.  They're HUGE - much, much bigger than all of the
>    gun control lobby groups put together.
    
     I'm sorry but you're mistaken again.  Many other PACS are much bigger
    than the NRA and HCI (Handgun Control Inc) is funded liberally and from
    secret sources.  
    
    Tim... it's extremely dangerous to disarm the American public...
    especially now.... I can't prove it, but I know it to be true.  
    I know there's no reason for you to believe me but... I have to say it 
    anyway.    
    
    mary

    Re: 210.26,
    
    So, do you believe only men, and a few female officers of the National
    Guard, should have the right to bear arms?
    
>	Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
> 
>	  (a) The militia of the United States consists
>	of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
>	and, except as provided in section 313 of title 
>	32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
>	made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
>	zens of the United States and of female citizens
>	of the United States who are commissioned of-
>	ficers of the National Guard.
    
    Me neither.
    
    Again, I'm no longer supporting totally banning all guns.  Although I
    believe it would be nice, it is obviously not practical.  I think they
    should be HEAVILY regulated, and specific types of guns should be
    totally banned.
    
    I just think it's time to do something drastic to end the bloodshed.
    As for me, I'm moving. ;-) (out of Florida, hopefully, that is...)
    
    tim

    Mary,
    
    First of all, I've been reading your notes for years, and I've always
    respected your opinions and your courage to express them.  I say this
    because I don't want there to be any doubt on your part that I have a
    grate deal of respect for you and what you think, and I certainly don't
    want to say anything to offend you.  We'll probably (hopefully) end up just 
    agreeing to disagree, but I know sometimes these discussions can get
    heated and I don't want to accidently cause you any stress...  I've
    been hammering it out over in DIGITAL.NOTE for a few weeks now with a
    couple of major boneheads, so please excuse me if my mouth sometimes 
    out-runs my headlights, so to speak.
    
    I think D.C. had the high crime rate BEFORE it had the tight gun
    control.  I think we need to give them some more time to clean up that
    mess.  I remember hanging out there in the mid-70's, and it was a zoo
    back then. (no offense to the D.C. heads out there - just a little
    rhetorical color)...
    
    There was an item on NPR a few weeks ago that talked about the NRA
    before the time of the Luby's thing, I think.  NPR described the NRA as
    one of the largest lobby groups in the country.  I tend to believe
    they're much larger than the Brady bunch (sorry, I couldn't resist the
    pun;-).  They've been around for decades, and they have a very
    well-heeled constituency, like Reagan.
    
    If certain guns are illegal, the market for them will dry up and the supply
    will dwindle, because manufacturers will stop making them.  They don't
    last forever, and it will be more and more difficult to get them new or
    repaired.  I don't see how people can claim there is no statistical
    evidence to support gun control when you look at numbers like the ones
    Chuck mentioned.  You hear them all the time, if you're listening.
    
    To me, it's time to raise the bar one more notch on the standards that
    comprise a 'civilized' world.  Ban assault weapons.  Ban handguns. 
    Tightly control sporting guns.  Stop the American bloodbath.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. So, how am I doin', rfb?  Is it time to shut up yet? I'm beginning to
    think so...;-)
    

     while trying to catch up on Grateful came across this topic again..
    
    Re:the guy that shot reagan: He got his gun legaly in Texas after going
    through a waiting period.
    
    
      I can't agree with any type of gun control for honest persons of this
    country(like RFB and Myself) if you want to own a firearm and can
    afford it it so be it, why should anyone else have the power to tell
    you what you can or cannot own, is this just because they don't belive
    like i do or do they have a desire to place themselves in control and
    take the place of the persons in control now.
    
    true gun control is hitting what you aim at!
    
    divide Dave
    

Re: Tim .24  (no Offense)


None taken mon.

I was going to reply but Mary handled it nicely. 

If I remember I'll bring in an article about HCI (handgun control inc.)
that shows some of the nasty things they have been up to in CA.

The NRA seems big but it really isn't. For every $ progun people contribute
the antigun people spend two. For instance within the club I belong to, out
of 2000 memebers, only 52% are in the NRA, (remember, these are gun owners)
out that only 18% belong to G.O.A.L. (Gun Owners Action League).
G.O.A.L. exsist because the NRA cannot provide *services* within MA.
To many gun owners get lazy because they think the NRA can handle it all,
well thats not the case. The NRA needs the help of it's members.

Remember I am in favor of regulations but SANE ones. The latest and greatest
is SUPPOSEDLY aim at AK47's and the likes, but within that bill it states
ANY gun that takes 7 rounds or more is to be banned. That means virtually
all firearms of today.  



      Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

    They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone
  under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon
  and citizen's firearms are indelibly related.

    From the Hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events,
  occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security,
  and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.

    Every corner of this land know firearms, and more than 99 99/100 *
   percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands.

    The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
   interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

    WHEN FIREARMS GO, ALL GOES - WE NEED THEM EVERY HOUR.


                        President George Washington
                            Address of the second session
                            First United States Congress


* With population increase over the years, and increase in gun relate sport,
this number stands pretty close to todays percentages. At the moment I don't
have the data to back it But I could find it tonight.


Shawn
  

    You've got a lot more faith in government than I do, Tim.  
    
    I saw on tv some dude talking about how the very powerful Israeli
    PAC told him not to bother running for office because they were
    supporting someone else.  He was really upset because he is Jewish
    and felt he deserved their support and because a foreign country
    was making political decisions about who would run for office in this
    country.  I find that most disturbing too.
    
    There are so many guns out there now that gun control laws wouldn't
    effect at all.  Just a few weeks ago I read about a robbery at the 
    Police Academy... thousands of guns were stolen.  Where do you think
    they'll end up?
    
    The situation developing appears to be that only criminals will have
    guns.  I find that a frightening and intolerable situation, Tim.
    Our economy is in such bad shape right now that we are on the verge
    of economic collapse if we can't stop it.  The police cannot protect
    the individual, nor are they obligated to by law.. our courts have
    already ruled so.
    
    We... as usual... are responsible for ourselves and our families.
    
    Like Marv said... if the other guy has a gun, I want a tank :-) ....
    but I'll settle for equal firepower.. that way we at least have a 
    chance.
    
    mary

    Ya Tim, shut up!!!! %^)
    
                           I haven't been in the DIGITAL file lately, but
    yer doin a good job!!!! %^)
                                   rfb

Some random samples.

>     I firmly believe that if someone or everyone in that cafeteria had a
>     gun that asshole who did the shooting would not have been able to kill
>     as many people.  That kind of shit happens too often for me to ignore.

Sure, the massacre might have been avoided or foreshortened had one of 
the victims had a gun with which to fight back. But can you really claim 
that the real tragedy is that that was not the case? The real tragedy is 
that one man was in possession of both the weapon and the willingness to 
use it to such an extent.

> The day when the gubmit. (read Armed services, police.) are the only ones
> who possess guns is the day when the US becomes a true police state.
> And we the people might as well chuck th eentire Constitution out the 
> window. 

Are you seriously suggesting armed uprising against the government? Is 
that really something you _want_ to have happen?


>    The point of the story is that in some cases you have to be prepared 
>    to fight back OR DIE.  I messed that guy up pretty badly but I did no
>    worse than they wanted to do to my friend and I.  If someone pulls a
>    knife, I want a gun.  If someone pulls a gun, I want a tank.

I'm very glad you escaped from this particular situation. But do you
really want to preach "fight violence with violence"?

Sheesh, I can't believe I'm reading all this stuff. From DEADHEADS,
no less, who pride themselves on their humanitarian values. Try
thinking less about _rights_ for once and think about _responsibilities_
instead.

The problem with the constitution is that it has such a limiting
effect on debate. Take any issue before the public, and the argument
briskly turns to the constitution's view on the subject. As a result
the constitution is right away transformed from the FINAL arbiter to
the FIRST arbiter. And the argument then turns from the issue at hand
to how the constitution ought to be read, to what inferences can be 
drawn from its wording.

And the effect of that is that whatever the constitution allows, the
people immediately want. Consider the second amendment. It says "the
right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Let's not
worry yet about whether this applies to just a militia, however that
is defined, or whether it applies to the man in the street, or whether
it still allows for government-applied controls and selective 
restrictions. All it says is that you _can_ carry guns. Does it say you 
_have_ to? And given that it says that everyone should be able to carry 
guns, do you really want to live in a society where that is the case? 
Would that really make you feel safer in your day-to-day life?

To be sure, if all guns were outlawed then only criminals would have 
guns. But nobody is seriously proposing any kind of outright ban
on handguns. And I, personally, don't feel any tangible threat whatsoever
from armed bank robbers. They are people who want guns and even, to an 
extent, need them in their line of work, and will get them by one means or
another in any case. But I'm rarely in a situation where I'd be a target
for such people. Nor do I feel sufficiently threatened by intruders
selecting my home to want to sit up all night cradling a handgun on the
offchance they might choose tonight to break in, and I suspect that would
go for a lot of Americans.

But the bottom line is that if you really want to have guns around, in
the end nothing I or anyone from the gun control lobby can do is going
to stop you. What I want to know is whether that really makes you
feel better about yourself and the society you live in. Instead, you 
just debate whether or not the constitution says you have the right
to own guns. How about shifting the debate to whether or not you want
a society in which everyone does own them?


...Robert

    A couple things that come to mind:
    
    If the status quo can be accepted as being a fairly open gun purchasing
    environment, and specifically that gun control in Texas is fairly wide
    open, as I believe it is, then what good did it do in Killeen?  I mean
    if you look at that example, the right to bear arms didn't do squat for
    those poor folks, so the LACK of gun control didn't help one bit.  The
    right to bear arms failed those people miserably, as it has in
    countless other tragic situations like that.  It is EXTREMELY rare that
    any armed private citizen has been able to successfully intervene under
    such circumstances...  I suggest that it is nearly inconsequential, and
    not a legitimate justification to withhold strict gun control.
    
    The other thing that comes to mind is, if the right to bear arms
    ensures our freedoms as defined in the Constitution, does anyone really
    believe that it will help if for some incredible reason, armed
    insurrection IS inevitable?  I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S.
    government is still going to have us seriously outgunned, except for
    the L.A. and Miami gangs, of course...;-)  They might actually win, but
    do we want them to?
    
    I submit that the only thing a LACK of gun control has provided is a
    365 day open hunting season on children, and other unarmed, innocent
    citizens.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. Damn, and I thought I was gonna shut up.  Sorry...

PENUTS::NOBLE 
    
    When we get down to define 'real tragedy', we have so much to choose
    from.  
    
>Are you seriously suggesting armed uprising against the government? Is 
>that really something you _want_ to have happen?

    I interpreted that to mean that an armed populace is a deterent to
    tyranny.  No one *wants* that to happen.  Only a fool thinks it
    can't happen... history proves otherwise.
    
>I'm very glad you escaped from this particular situation. But do you
>really want to preach "fight violence with violence"?

    I don't think anyone is preaching here... just expressing opinions.
    Deadheads tend to be survivors.... and like it or not...this is a
    potentially violent world.
    
>Sheesh, I can't believe I'm reading all this stuff. From DEADHEADS,
>no less, who pride themselves on their humanitarian values. Try
>thinking less about _rights_ for once and think about _responsibilities_
>instead.

    Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.  You seem to think that
    people will assume responsibility without having any rights.  It
    doesn't work that way... and it shouldn't.
    
>The problem with the constitution is that it has such a limiting
>effect on debate. Take any issue before the public, and the argument
>briskly turns to the constitution's view on the subject. As a result
>the constitution is right away transformed from the FINAL arbiter to
>the FIRST arbiter. And the argument then turns from the issue at hand
>to how the constitution ought to be read, to what inferences can be 
>drawn from its wording.

    I don't see that as a problem really.
    
>And the effect of that is that whatever the constitution allows, the
>people immediately want. Consider the second amendment. It says "the
>right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Let's not
>worry yet about whether this applies to just a militia, however that
>is defined, or whether it applies to the man in the street, or whether
>it still allows for government-applied controls and selective 
>restrictions. All it says is that you _can_ carry guns. Does it say you 
>_have_ to? And given that it says that everyone should be able to carry 
>guns, do you really want to live in a society where that is the case? 
>Would that really make you feel safer in your day-to-day life?

    We do already, I think.  We don't have a lot of faith in government nor
    in their arm of enforcement.  That situation didn't come about
    arbitrarily... our faith was systematically broken time and time again.
    
>To be sure, if all guns were outlawed then only criminals would have 
>guns. But nobody is seriously proposing any kind of outright ban
>on handguns. And I, personally, don't feel any tangible threat whatsoever
>from armed bank robbers. They are people who want guns and even, to an 
>extent, need them in their line of work, and will get them by one means or
>another in any case. But I'm rarely in a situation where I'd be a target
>for such people. Nor do I feel sufficiently threatened by intruders
>selecting my home to want to sit up all night cradling a handgun on the
>offchance they might choose tonight to break in, and I suspect that would
>go for a lot of Americans.

    Yes... I feel the same way.  I don't feel particularly threatened.
    That says nothing about why I shouldn't be able to own a gun though.
    
>But the bottom line is that if you really want to have guns around, in
>the end nothing I or anyone from the gun control lobby can do is going
>to stop you. What I want to know is whether that really makes you
>feel better about yourself and the society you live in. Instead, you 
>just debate whether or not the constitution says you have the right
>to own guns. How about shifting the debate to whether or not you want
>a society in which everyone does own them?

    We do live in a society where everyone is entitled to own one unless
    they are a criminal or have mental problems.
    
    Does it make me feel better about myself and the society I live in?
    I do feel more competent to protect myself and my family should the
    need ever arise... so I guess the answer to that is yes.  I feel that
    I can function within my society as well as anyone else and I've
    always loved this country.
    
    Now how about you, Robert.  How does my owning a gun make you feel 
    about yourself?  Perhaps that is the real issue here... I don't know.
    
SCAM::GRADY 
    
    I don't believe the status quo is a fairly open gun purchasing
    environment, Tim... each state is different but, according to my
    NRA firearms safety course, an individual can only purchase a gun
    in the state in which he lives... if you try to purchase one outside
    of that state, the gun will be shipped to a registered firearms dealer
    within your state who is obligated by law to ensure that you are
    lawfully authorized to purchase the firearm.
    
>    If the status quo can be accepted as being a fairly open gun purchasing
>    environment, and specifically that gun control in Texas is fairly wide
>    open, as I believe it is, then what good did it do in Killeen?  I mean
>    if you look at that example, the right to bear arms didn't do squat for
>    those poor folks, so the LACK of gun control didn't help one bit.  The
>    right to bear arms failed those people miserably, as it has in
>    countless other tragic situations like that.  It is EXTREMELY rare that
>    any armed private citizen has been able to successfully intervene under
>    such circumstances...  I suggest that it is nearly inconsequential, and
>    not a legitimate justification to withhold strict gun control.
    
     I believe that the facts discount that... armed citizens prevent more
    crimes than the police and are less likely to actually use deadly
    force.
        
>    The other thing that comes to mind is, if the right to bear arms
>    ensures our freedoms as defined in the Constitution, does anyone really
>    believe that it will help if for some incredible reason, armed
>    insurrection IS inevitable?  
    
     Yes... I believe it.
    
    >I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S.
>    government is still going to have us seriously outgunned, except for
>    the L.A. and Miami gangs, of course...;-)  They might actually win, but
>    do we want them to?
    
     I don't know what you want, Tim. :-)  I don't want to have to fight
    for my country, but I certainly will if I have to.
        
>    I submit that the only thing a LACK of gun control has provided is a
>    365 day open hunting season on children, and other unarmed, innocent
>    citizens.
    
    I submit that is an alarmist and emotional position common to 
    gun control advocates and totally devoid of fact.
    
    Take care and have a nice weekend. :-)
    
    mary

re 35                        Gun control                          35 of 35

	Hello Robert

		Is this your first entry in Grateful? If so,.. welcome,.. if 
	not,.. please excuse the space

>Sure, the massacre might have been avoided or foreshortened had one of 
>the victims had a gun with which to fight back. But can you really claim 
>that the real tragedy is that that was not the case? The real tragedy is 
>that one man was in possession of both the weapon and the willingness to 
>use it to such an extent.

	Maybe not,.. just the second tragedy in a series of tragedies I would
	say.

> The day when the gubmit. (read Armed services, police.) are the only ones
> who possess guns is the day when the US becomes a true police state.
> And we the people might as well chuck th eentire Constitution out the 
> window. 

>Are you seriously suggesting armed uprising against the government? Is 
>that really something you _want_ to have happen?

	It depends. The government seems to be conducting an (armed)
	assault on our civil rights. As to whether I want it to hapeen
	no F*C*I*G way do I *WANT* it to happen. I would much rather have the
	government reestablish some of the rights they've erased recently,
	stop the process of destroying those rights we still (supposedly)
	have, and call it a day. But as the current trend continues,.. I can see
	it ending in nothing but an armed uprising of the citizens. Its not
	a question of want. I suppose to some people like myself, ther are 
	things worth fighting for and yes, even dying for. The only other choice
	at that point is to live out our lives oppressed by the police
	state government that is being created. Are you denying that 
	possibility exists? Are you denying that a war on civil rights is 
	happening? If you don't think its happening, I can uinderstand your
	point of view here. But in my humble opinion, if you really believe 
	that, then your eyes are shut.
	

>    The point of the story is that in some cases you have to be prepared 
>    to fight back OR DIE.  I messed that guy up pretty badly but I did no
>    worse than they wanted to do to my friend and I.  If someone pulls a
>    knife, I want a gun.  If someone pulls a gun, I want a tank.

>I'm very glad you escaped from this particular situation. But do you
>really want to preach "fight violence with violence"?

	What are the other choices? Would you rather watch your female friend
	get raped by these guys?

>Sheesh, I can't believe I'm reading all this stuff. From DEADHEADS,
>no less, who pride themselves on their humanitarian values. Try
>thinking less about _rights_ for once and think about _responsibilities_
>instead.

	Its not really a question in my mind of humanitarianism. For example,
	if I had been in Luby's with my trusty revolver, and had shot the
	scumbag myself,. that might very well have been the most humanitarian
	act of consciousness I would be likely to carry out in my entire 
	lifetime.

>To be sure, if all guns were outlawed then only criminals would have 
>guns. But nobody is seriously proposing any kind of outright ban
>on handguns.

	Some are propopsing just that. Admittedly, they are not
	being taken very seriously,.. yet.


>But the bottom line is that if you really want to have guns around, in
>the end nothing I or anyone from the gun control lobby can do is going
>to stop you. What I want to know is whether that really makes you
>feel better about yourself and the society you live in. Instead, you 
>just debate whether or not the constitution says you have the right
>to own guns. How about shifting the debate to whether or not you want
>a society in which everyone does own them?

	Agreed. It wouldn't make me feel better about the society
	in general. Hey,,, you know,.. society sucks and all that.
	But, it would be nice to know that when would be rapist,
	would be killer, or would be oppressor decides to take
	away my life or the lives of one of my loved ones, that
	I at least have a chance of scaring them off. Actually,
	for most intruders, once they realize that you do have a
	gun,.. they are GONE! There's usually much easier pickin's
	across town somewhere. They don't want to die for your
	TV set,. or the priviledge of killing you, or raping
	your daughter. If they find out theres a real person with
	a real gun willing to use it at some household,.. they are
	out of there. One indiscriminant shot in the dark, even purposely
	aimed so as to miss an intruder, will send them running. If it
	doesn't,.. then its time to take aim I guess. A thought that disgusts
	me only a slight bit less than seeing my wife get raped, or 
	giving up my own and her life to the scum.

	Anyway,.. Robert,.. these are strong words and strong opinions
	here, and Just remember thats all they are is opinions. I welcome
	your rebuttal in continuing this discussion. I also wish to be clear
	that I am not trying to attack your values. In fact, your head and heart
	seem to me to be in the right place. But I'd be willing to bet $10
	you've never been in a do or die situation. That kind of life training
	has a big impact on you. Picture yourself huddling under a table
	in Luby's with bullets flying everywhere, including possibly, into
	your DEAD head.

    
    	re Tim
    
    		I don't accept the notion that justification needs to be
    provided to restrict gun control. I put the onus on you to justify
    revoking the right to bear arms.
    
    
							/Bill
    
    
    

    
    
    My notes make me sound like a very dangerous character...  but anyone
    who knows me is aware that the only real danger I present is in being
    smothered in crocheted apparel. 
    
    mary

 Re -1

       :^)






 Jim

RE: Mary


8-)  8-)  8-)

Shawn

    Mary:
    
>    I don't think anyone is preaching here... just expressing opinions.
>    Deadheads tend to be survivors.... and like it or not...this is a
>    potentially violent world.

     Okay, then, are you expressing the _opinion_ that "the best way
     to deal with violence is with more violence"? Yes, I'll accept that
     it's a potentially violent world, but I don't agree that arming
     ourselves, putting MORE guns into our hands, is the only possible
     solution to that. How about working to build a peace-loving 
     society in which no-one feels the need to defend themselves against
     anyone?
    
>    Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.  You seem to think that
>    people will assume responsibility without having any rights.  It
>    doesn't work that way... and it shouldn't.

     What I meant about responsibilities (sorry I didn't make myself
     clearer) was the responsibility to work for a better world for
     our children. I don't want to feel that my children will grow
     up surrounded by more weaponry than I did. That doesn't sound
     like progress to me.

>    Yes... I feel the same way.  I don't feel particularly threatened.
>    That says nothing about why I shouldn't be able to own a gun though.

    Okay, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing with. If you feel you've
    got to arm yourself, fine, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. But
    please don't try to tell me I should be doing the same. I'm not even
    really arguing for gun control (though that may come as a surprise).

>    Does it make me feel better about myself and the society I live in?
>    I do feel more competent to protect myself and my family should the
>    need ever arise... so I guess the answer to that is yes.  I feel that
>    I can function within my society as well as anyone else and I've
>    always loved this country.
>    
>    Now how about you, Robert.  How does my owning a gun make you feel 
>    about yourself?  Perhaps that is the real issue here... I don't know.

    I don't feel incompetent to protect my family empty-handed. On the 
    contrary I feel I provide them with a strong framework of love that
    they feel every day. That's an intangible, of course, but to me it's
    a more valuable lesson for my child than having firearms about the 
    house. After all, as I said, I don't feel personally threatened.
    I feel a lot better knowing that I provide protection that comes from 
    the heart rather than from a smoking gun. If anything it makes me
    feel strong.


    /Bill:

    No it's not my first entry in here. I've written in Grateful here and
    there for a few years, but I'm usually pretty subdued. Still, thanks
    for your welcome.

>	Are you denying that 
>	possibility exists? Are you denying that a war on civil rights is 
>	happening? If you don't think its happening, I can uinderstand your
>	point of view here. But in my humble opinion, if you really believe 
>	that, then your eyes are shut.

    No, I agree that rights are being eroded. The war on drugs in 
    particular has set off all sorts of flagrant assaults on civil
    rights. And we should work to reverse that trend. If your way
    of fighting the trend is to arm yourself and propose armed 
    insurrection, well, "don't you know that you can count me out". 
    But I'm not saying you shouldn't do that. I am saying you might 
    want to pursue more peaceful courses of action first.
	
>	What are the other choices? Would you rather watch your female friend
>	get raped by these guys?

    I'm going to get wiped for saying this, but, yes, maybe, in some
    circumstances, it might be preferable, if the alternative is a 
    vigilante on-the-spot death sentence against a fellow human.

>	Its not really a question in my mind of humanitarianism. For example,
>	if I had been in Luby's with my trusty revolver, and had shot the
>	scumbag myself,. that might very well have been the most humanitarian
>	act of consciousness I would be likely to carry out in my entire 
>	lifetime.

     It might have been. It could also be that as soon as the guy saw 
     your gun, you'd have been the first victim.


>	Some are propopsing just that (total ban). Admittedly, they are not
>	being taken very seriously,.. yet.

    Not me.

>	away my life or the lives of one of my loved ones, that
>	I at least have a chance of scaring them off. Actually,
>	for most intruders, once they realize that you do have a
>	gun,.. they are GONE! 
>	A thought that disgusts
>	me only a slight bit less than seeing my wife get raped, or 
>	giving up my own and her life to the scum.

    You seem very experienced in these matters, and if this is the way
    such situations have turned out for you in the past, then I'll allow
    that that's what happens. But it seems to me that the presence of 
    a gun in the house could steer events in all sorts of ways, not 
    all of them ending with the intruder taking to his heels. What you're
    saying is that the intruders would rather run than cause injury, but
    that you, in contrast, the solid upright citizen, will readily pull 
    the trigger to cause injury or death to a fellow human. How does that 
    make you feel? And don't answer this with talk about "scum" who no 
    longer deserve human consideration. Those people are your brothers.

>	Anyway,.. Robert,.. these are strong words and strong opinions
>	here, and Just remember thats all they are is opinions. I welcome
>	your rebuttal in continuing this discussion. 

    Of course I understand that. And I appreciate the courteous way in
    which you conduct your debate.

> 	I also wish to be clear
>	that I am not trying to attack your values. In fact, your head and heart
>	seem to me to be in the right place. But I'd be willing to bet $10
>	you've never been in a do or die situation. That kind of life training
>	has a big impact on you. Picture yourself huddling under a table
>	in Luby's with bullets flying everywhere, including possibly, into
>	your DEAD head.

    Well, no, I probably haven't ever been in a "do or die" situation. I
    guess I've been lucky. If that's "life training" then maybe I haven't
    lived, but I believe I've led a pretty normal life. I hesitate to
    use anecdotes to bolster any argument (I think that's one problem
    with this debate; an anecdote doesn't prove a thing, a concept
    Reagan always had problems understanding). But I will. The closest I've
    come to such a situation was when I got mugged on my first visit to 
    this country. I was mad as hell at those guys, but it never crossed 
    my mind to want to "blow the scum away". If I'd had a gun and used it
    I suspect I'd still be traumatized by the death I'd caused. Instead
    I got away with body intact, and minus a camera. Surprisingly, I
    still came to live here anyway. In other words what could have been
    a life-shaping experience is instead just something that happened to
    me a long time ago. I think I actually prefer it that way.

    A woman of my acquaintance was in a "do or die" situation when two
    men broke into her apartment and proceeded to threaten her with
    knives. Maybe, just maybe, the unpleasantness that ensued might
    have been avoided if she'd had a gun in the apartment. But she'd
    have to have been waiting inside the door with the gun loaded and
    cocked, and she'd have to have been prepared to fire without asking
    questions. In practice she'd have had to go get the gun from wherever
    it lived, before it'd do her any good.  She now feels that if she'd
    had a gun, she'd be dead now, because that would have made her more of
    a threat. In the event, she suffered a lot of pain, but survived, and
    finally got to see the criminal justice system deal with both guys.

    I'm rambling on far longer than I intended. What I'm trying to say
    is if you want to arm yourselves, go ahead. But please spare us the
    macho posturing, the "waste the assholes" threats, the "my guns make
    me a man". If you want to fight for rights, go ahead. I'm right 
    behind you. But don't confuse that fight with a fight for physical
    supremacy. I know that's a fight I'd lose. But I'm secure enough 
    in my life, my home and my family not to care about that. Perhaps 
    that's the difference between us.
    
    ...Robert    

     >	if I had been in Luby's with my trusty revolver, and had shot the
     >	scumbag myself,. that might very well have been the most humanitarian
     >	act of consciousness I would be likely to carry out in my entire 
     >	lifetime.
    
    This is only one possible scenario.  I can imagine that if everybody
    in that restaurant had a gun, the death toll could easily have been
    higher.  You are assuming that everybody who owns a gun knows how to
    use it competently ... if we can judge by the way people operate their
    motor vehicles, VCRs, computers, and other toys of technology, I'd say
    that's a false assumption.
    
    You could just as easily have missed the "scumbag" and hit another patron
    huddled behind him ... or they you.  When the bullets start flying from
    all different directions, THEN where do you huddle to remain safe?
    
    Even soldiers trained in the use of firearms don't always use them
    properly.  Did you know it's a fact that in Operation Desert Storm, our
    British allies suffered more casualties from "friendly fire" than they
    did from fighting their enemy?  What makes you think that everybody
    who goes into a store and buys a gun is gonna know how ... and when ...
    to use it properly?
    
    ... Bob
    

PENUTS::NOBLE 
    
>     Okay, then, are you expressing the _opinion_ that "the best way
>     to deal with violence is with more violence"? Yes, I'll accept that
>     it's a potentially violent world, but I don't agree that arming
>     ourselves, putting MORE guns into our hands, is the only possible
>     solution to that. How about working to build a peace-loving 
>     society in which no-one feels the need to defend themselves against
>     anyone?
    
    I have searched history and haven't found that such a society has ever 
    existed.... and if one managed to spring up... it didn't exist for
    very long before being overrun by it's more violent neighbors.
    One must deal with reality honestly.  It has been my experience that
    violent people respect equal force and consider the weak to be victims
    deserving of their fate.
    
>     What I meant about responsibilities (sorry I didn't make myself
>     clearer) was the responsibility to work for a better world for
>     our children. I don't want to feel that my children will grow
>     up surrounded by more weaponry than I did. That doesn't sound
>     like progress to me.

     Your children are already living in a world replete with weaponry.
    The nuclear and conventional weaponry alone carries the potential
    to destroy the world.  Turning your children into victims does not
    protect them, nor does it insure their survival.  Sometimes bitter
    truths must be faced head on and delt with accordingly.... in my own
    very humble opinion, of course.
    
>    Okay, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing with. If you feel you've
>    got to arm yourself, fine, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. But
>    please don't try to tell me I should be doing the same. I'm not even
>    really arguing for gun control (though that may come as a surprise).

    Oh my dear heavens... how ever did you get the impression that I was
    trying to force you to arm yourself.  My dear man... that is the
    farthest thing from my mind,... I assure you.
    
>    I don't feel incompetent to protect my family empty-handed. On the 
>    contrary I feel I provide them with a strong framework of love that
>    they feel every day. That's an intangible, of course, but to me it's
>    a more valuable lesson for my child than having firearms about the 
>    house. After all, as I said, I don't feel personally threatened.
>    I feel a lot better knowing that I provide protection that comes from 
>    the heart rather than from a smoking gun. If anything it makes me
>    feel strong.

     To each his own...
    
>    No, I agree that rights are being eroded. The war on drugs in 
>    particular has set off all sorts of flagrant assaults on civil
>    rights. And we should work to reverse that trend. If your way
>    of fighting the trend is to arm yourself and propose armed 
>    insurrection, well, "don't you know that you can count me out". 
    
    No one was "proposing armed insurrection".  You are very much mistaken.
    
>
>    You seem very experienced in these matters, and if this is the way
>    such situations have turned out for you in the past, then I'll allow
>    that that's what happens. But it seems to me that the presence of 
>    a gun in the house could steer events in all sorts of ways, not 
>    all of them ending with the intruder taking to his heels. What you're
>    saying is that the intruders would rather run than cause injury, but
>    that you, in contrast, the solid upright citizen, will readily pull 
>    the trigger to cause injury or death to a fellow human. How does that 
>    make you feel? And don't answer this with talk about "scum" who no 
>    longer deserve human consideration. Those people are your brothers.

     I believe it has something to do with survival of the fittest.  You
    see... *my* brother wouldn't try to kill me.  In times of stress, we
    sometimes see a breakdown in society and with it comes chaos and
    confusion and random violence... even Scarlett O'Hara found herself in
    a position where she felt she had to kill to survive.... I (of course)
    am no Scarlett O'Hara... but I do try to live to see another day.
    
>    I'm rambling on far longer than I intended. What I'm trying to say
>    is if you want to arm yourselves, go ahead. But please spare us the
>    macho posturing, the "waste the assholes" threats, the "my guns make
>    me a man". 
    
    I don't know any gun people who are like that, Robert.  Perhaps you
    view us through steriotypical eyes.
    
    >If you want to fight for rights, go ahead. I'm right 
    >behind you. But don't confuse that fight with a fight for physical
    >supremacy. I know that's a fight I'd lose. But I'm secure enough 
    >in my life, my home and my family not to care about that. Perhaps 
    >that's the difference between us.
    
    Perhaps... or perhaps you labor under a false sense of security...
    these are not very secure times, Robert.. change is everywhere and
    with the coming of change, society often times breaks down occassionally
    ... those times pass, of course... the trick is to get through them
    alive... and thats all we're trying to do.
    
    I guess it's a matter of survival.
    
    Mary

BOOKS::BAILEYB 
    
>    did from fighting their enemy?  What makes you think that everybody
>    who goes into a store and buys a gun is gonna know how ... and when ...
>    to use it properly?
    
      Well, Bob .... they could make the NRA Home Firearms Safety Course
    and other NRA courses a prerequisite to receiving a license... many 
    places already do.
    
mary    

    If everybody who bought a gun were required to take some kind of
    firearms safety course I'd feel a whole lot better about people owning
    guns.  However, NRA courses still won't guarantee that you are gonna
    hit your intended target ... or for that matter that your intended target
    is appropriate to BE an intended target.
    
    Remember, most everybody who operates a car in Massachusetts takes a
    course at a driving school ...
    
    					... Bob
    

re:       <<< Note 210.43 by BOOKS::BAILEYB "Let my inspiration flow ..." >>>
   

    
>    higher.  You are assuming that everybody who owns a gun knows how to
>    use it competently ... if we can judge by the way people operate their
>    motor vehicles, VCRs, computers, and other toys of technology, I'd say
>    that's a false assumption.
    
This where the laws on issuance of permits need to be improved as they have
in MA.  The second most important requirement is Knowledge of safe handling
and proof of your ability to score consistently when using said firearm.
Most if not all the people I know who own firearms are top notch marksman.
And yes even the best shooters can miss their mark. But a person with
plenty of experience knows enough to only shoot when the best opportunity 
presents itself.  

>   You could just as easily have missed the "scumbag" and hit another patron
>    huddled behind him ... or they you.  When the bullets start flying from
>    all different directions, THEN where do you huddle to remain safe?
    
If there were a high number of people present with firearms and all
of them started shooting willy-nilly, I don't know where I would hide.
but I do know that people that react in that manner really should not
be allowed to have a gun in their possesion. 

>   Even soldiers trained in the use of firearms don't always use them
>    properly.  Did you know it's a fact that in Operation Desert Storm, our
>    British allies suffered more casualties from "friendly fire" than they

 Was this "friendly fire" from hand held firearms or from the bigger
artillery. If our armed soldiers cannot handle rifles properly then
that doesn't say much for our military. If it was the bigger artillery
that caused the casualties I can understand it a little better. It's
not about aiming and firing, you are "blind" to your targets and rely
on the proper coordinates, usually passed on through multiple messengers.


>    did from fighting their enemy?  What makes you think that everybody
>    who goes into a store and buys a gun is gonna know how ... and when ...
>    to use it properly?
    
 This is why I am for applicants having to meet certain requirements such
as training courses designed to certify individuals in the proper usage
and safety requirements when handling firearms. 

Then I would know that not just anyone was legally purchasing firearms.


Shawn

	Robert, I just want to say here that you are not alone in
	your feelings.  I want to say that because very often
	people tell me that I should "face reality", that I am
	being naive...and when too many people tell me that,
	I start getting depressed that the "whole world is against
	me".  You are not alone in your thoughts and I applaud you.

	MY feelings are if I am to evolve my level of consciousness,
	I have to try to live my life according to what feels spiritually
	correct to ME.  I perceive a reality which is not completely
	physical and therefore I take that into account too.  At this 
	time in my life, I feel that I have to give more emphasis to the 
	love impulse which is in me - in that way I feel I will make a 
	more positive influence, small that it may be, on the world around 
	me.  I will NOT be influenced by the violence that is prevalent 
	around me and I am teaching my children along the same lines.  

	I truly feel that by thinking, feeling, and doing positive
	love-filled thoughts and actions, that I am helping the
	collective consciousness evolve.  I believe we ARE in a
	"new age" right now and we have the choice as to whether
	we are going to evolve or destroy the Earth and ourselves...

	I very much like and relate to what you said:
>    On the contrary I feel I provide them with a strong framework of love that
>    they feel every day. That's an intangible, of course, but to me it's
>    a more valuable lesson for my child than having firearms about the 
>    house. 

	I am not trying to tell others what to do with their lives,
	or that I am morally superior to them.  I am just saying how I
	feel and validating Robert's feelings on the subject.

	Mary, one thing you said I will refer to.  About there being no
	non-violent civilizations in history.  I have done alot of thinking
	on this too.  I have been studying how human consciousness has 
	evolved over recorded history and I believe we are now at a
	critical point in our evolution.  We are at the point where we
	can destroy the Earth so that no living thing can inhabit her.
	It is going to take a giant step in our collective consciousness
	to save her.  All through history, we HAVE seen human consciousness
	evolve.  It CAN (MUST?) happen again!

	Debess

BOOKS::BAILEYB 
    
>    If everybody who bought a gun were required to take some kind of
>    firearms safety course I'd feel a whole lot better about people owning
>    guns.  However, NRA courses still won't guarantee that you are gonna
>    hit your intended target ... or for that matter that your intended target
>    is appropriate to BE an intended target.
    
     No guarantees anywhere in life, Bob.  No guarantees that our banks
    will take proper care of our money, that our elected legislators will
    represent our interests, .... no guarantees at all... why should this
    be any different?
        
OCTOBR::GRABAZS 
    
>	Mary, one thing you said I will refer to.  About there being no
>	non-violent civilizations in history.  I have done alot of thinking
>	on this too.  I have been studying how human consciousness has 
>	evolved over recorded history and I believe we are now at a
>	critical point in our evolution.  
    
        I have too and I agree with your assessment.
    
    >We are at the point where we
>	can destroy the Earth so that no living thing can inhabit her.
>	It is going to take a giant step in our collective consciousness
>	to save her.  
    
        Debess... it isn't your neighbor possessing a handgun that
    threatens the Earth...it's the weapons that the planet's governments
    possess and how they use them.  They have freely distributed nuclear
    technology for profit and every backwater collection of thugs that
    call themselves a country are crawling over themselves for more.  That
    fight isn't being fought on an individual level, Debess.  But if the
    individual remains armed, then the species at least has a chance of
    surviving... or individuals within that species anyway.
    ....... I don't know... I don't want to talk about this anymore.
    
    I personally will remain armed if I can possibly find a way to do so...
    each of us makes his or her own choices.  I pray to God that I never
    need to use those firearms ... I will do everything in my power to
    avoid such a situation.... I tend to avoid conflict anyway... but I 
    will force myself to acquire them and to learn how to use them so that 
    I'll be able to if I am forced to.
    
    >All through history, we HAVE seen human consciousness
    >	evolve.  It CAN (MUST?) happen again!

    It is happening again.  The trick is to get through these times.
    
    mary

	yes, mary, my note took a giant leap in train of thought!
	I didn't mean to say that owning a handgun was destroying the
	Earth...that's what I get for replying to this topic!

	I was responding to the notes that implied that violence
	is the only response to violence.  And I was trying to reinforce
	what Robert was saying...there is another way...

	and if we don't "survive" because of our response?...I feel
	that by not adding to the violence I have indeed added to our
	evolvement.  I am not that worried about not surviving...as
	I've said before, I perceive of more than a physical existence...

	and I'll have another chance somelife!  
	Debess

XANADU::GRABAZS 
    
>	yes, mary, my note took a giant leap in train of thought!
>	I didn't mean to say that owning a handgun was destroying the
>	Earth...that's what I get for replying to this topic!

        I think it's a necessary distinction though, Debess... don't you?    
    
>	I was responding to the notes that implied that violence
>	is the only response to violence.  And I was trying to reinforce
>	what Robert was saying...there is another way...

        Some may choose to die rather than fight to live.  It's as valid
        a choice as any... nobler than some.. men have made those kinds
        of choices since the beginning of time, of course.
    
>	and if we don't "survive" because of our response?...I feel
>	that by not adding to the violence I have indeed added to our
>	evolvement.  I am not that worried about not surviving...as
>	I've said before, I perceive of more than a physical existence...
>	and I'll have another chance somelife!  
    
        Thats a very, very admirable position, Debess.  It isn't a position
        that I would take however.
    
        I know myself ... I'm neither a martyr nor a saint... just
        a humble person trying to survive in an increasingly hostile world.
    
        Mary

>     Your children are already living in a world replete with weaponry.
>    The nuclear and conventional weaponry alone carries the potential
>    to destroy the world.  

    We're not talking about national security here. I don't look forward
    to teaching my children about the arms race, but I'd feel a lot
    less happy justifying guns in the house to them. If you think 
    personal security is just a microcosm of national security, then
    by the same argument everyone in my house should have his or her
    own arms against the other members of the household. But we're a 
    family; that's not how our relationships work.

>     I believe it has something to do with survival of the fittest.  

     Well, I've survived. Without a gun. "Fittest" = best armed?

>    You see... *my* brother wouldn't try to kill me.  

     ...And anyone who does try to kill you, or even makes threatening
     gestures, thereby is not your brother? If that's what you mean,
     you sure make some snap judgments.

>     In times of stress, we
>    sometimes see a breakdown in society and with it comes chaos and
>    confusion and random violence... even Scarlett O'Hara 

     A fictional character. Don't get caught up in what Hollywood 
     teaches you. Another one of Reagan's problems.

>     found herself in
>    a position where she felt she had to kill to survive.... I (of course)
>    am no Scarlett O'Hara... but I do try to live to see another day.

     Me too. So far, I always have. Unarmed.

>    I don't know any gun people who are like that, Robert.  Perhaps you
>    view us through steriotypical eyes.

    If you mean I'm viewing you as stereotypes (there's nothing stereotypical
    about my eyes), you could be right. I'm really thinking of the
    redneck bumper stickers I see so often ("Insured by S&W", etc - oh,
    so if I steal this car a disembodied handgun is going to fly up from
    beneath the seat and shoot me between the eyes?). If you don't sport
    any of those stickers, and have never spoken with satisfaction about
    getting the chance to blow someone away, then I apologize. It's true,
    on looking back through these replies, that those attitudes aren't
    expressed very explicitly. I do, however, detect a little 
    self-righteousness. For example:
	" if I had been in Luby's with my trusty revolver, and had shot the
	scumbag myself,. that might very well have been the most humanitarian
	act of consciousness I would be likely to carry out in my entire 
	lifetime."
     (Not you, Mary, I know).

>    Oh my dear heavens... how ever did you get the impression that I was
>    trying to force you to arm yourself.  My dear man... that is the
>    farthest thing from my mind,... I assure you.

    But you are advocating gun ownership as a solution to certain 
    problems. In doing so you are advocating it to me. I'm saying that
    it's not the solution for me.

>    Perhaps... or perhaps you labor under a false sense of security...
>    these are not very secure times, Robert.. change is everywhere and

    Excuse me, but I think I know best how secure MY life is.


    And Debess, thanks. I'm glad someone understands what I'm saying.

    ...Robert

PENUTS::NOBLE 
    

>    We're not talking about national security here. I don't look forward
>    to teaching my children about the arms race, but I'd feel a lot
>    less happy justifying guns in the house to them. If you think 
>    personal security is just a microcosm of national security, then
>    by the same argument everyone in my house should have his or her
>    own arms against the other members of the household. But we're a 
>    family; that's not how our relationships work.

    Everyone who shares this world with you isn't family.  Most of them
    don't even consider themselves to be friends.  Many of them are
    not aquantances.  Most of them you will never know and they will
    never impact your life in one way or another.  But a very few of them 
    are capable of some violence (if you allow it) by virtue of their own 
    choices.
    
    I personally feel it is a mistake to judge all of reality by one's
    own personal reality... that, of course, is also a matter of opinion
    and personal style.
    
>     Well, I've survived. Without a gun. "Fittest" = best armed?

    Yes... and I hope you continue to do so... I sincerely do... these
    are troubled times.  
    
>     ...And anyone who does try to kill you, or even makes threatening
>     gestures, thereby is not your brother? If that's what you mean,
>     you sure make some snap judgments.

    :-) ... do I?  It seems to me that it is you who are making snap
    judgements.  Why does my opinion make you so angry, Robert?  It only
    affects you if you plan to kill me and you wouldn't kill one you
    consider family.  What difference does it make to you how I feel or
    why?  We do not try to force our opinions on you... why do you try to
    force yours on us?
    
>     A fictional character. Don't get caught up in what Hollywood 
>     teaches you. Another one of Reagan's problems.

     Art sometimes mirrors life, you know? :-)
    
>     Me too. So far, I always have. Unarmed.

     You know... we've already determined that I am not trying to force
    you to arm yourself, Robert.  Now why are you trying to force your
    attitude upon me?  You survive however you choose to and we shall to
    the same.
    
>    If you mean I'm viewing you as stereotypes (there's nothing stereotypical
>    about my eyes), you could be right. I'm really thinking of the
>    redneck bumper stickers I see so often ("Insured by S&W", etc - oh,
>    so if I steal this car a disembodied handgun is going to fly up from
>    beneath the seat and shoot me between the eyes?). If you don't sport
>    any of those stickers, and have never spoken with satisfaction about
>    getting the chance to blow someone away, then I apologize. It's true,
>    on looking back through these replies, that those attitudes aren't
>    expressed very explicitly. I do, however, detect a little 
>    self-righteousness. For example:
>	" if I had been in Luby's with my trusty revolver, and had shot the
>	scumbag myself,. that might very well have been the most humanitarian
>	act of consciousness I would be likely to carry out in my entire 
>	lifetime."
>     (Not you, Mary, I know).

     We have all been guilty of self-righteousness at one time or another,
    Robert... even you I'll bet :-) ... this is (alas) an imperfect world
    and we are an imperfect species... all of us.  There is more than a 
    little judgementalism in all of our attitudes.
    
>    But you are advocating gun ownership as a solution to certain 
>    problems. In doing so you are advocating it to me. I'm saying that
>    it's not the solution for me.

    That is certainly your choice to make... and I certainly respect your
    choices.  I do find it to be a solution though... at least temporarily.
    
>    Excuse me, but I think I know best how secure MY life is.

    Yes... of course you do.  And the rest of us are equally capable of
    making our own decisions... don't you think?

    Mary

It seems to me that one of the issues here is self-preservation vs. the
on-going "evolution" of humanity.  I think in order to survive, the human
race is going to need to learn how to find and exercise non-violent solutions
to its problems, both local and global.

I think some of the great people of the past, such as Gandhi and MLK,
recognized this and lived this in their lives.  Unfortunately, living this
concept can get you killed ... but it's difficult for me, personally, to
imagine being armed while advocating non-violent problem solving.  So I guess
I see this, too, as being a moral issue ... I wouldn't prevent anyone else
from having guns in their home if they wish, but I choose not to.  Maybe that's
a luxury that I can afford at this time in history in this country ... but
that's the way it is.

- Dave

VMPIRE::CLARK 
    
>... but it's difficult for me, personally, to
>imagine being armed while advocating non-violent problem solving.  
    
    This is exactly where I find myself right now, Dave.  And I do advocate
    non-violent problem solving.
    
    mary

    the answer is "choice"...let me choose as I let you.
                                                        rfb

    This is one of the more interesting conversations that I've seen around
    Grateful in awhile.  Unfortunately, I'm too damn busy right now to
    really say anything, so....just hold that thought.  I'll be back.
    
    tim
    

    I just wanted to say that... I guess where I'm coming from on this is
    that I believe that one can best negotiate non-violent solutions if
    one is coming from a position of power.
    
    ... that seems to be what it's coming down to ... from me anyway...
    
    I don't want to hurt anybody... I never did... I just think that it's
    safer to be as strong as the other guy while maintaining self-restraint
    and personal discipline.
    
    mary

    I jus wanna say that even though i totally disagree woth the anti-gun
    or gun control people/ideas, i totally respect those for their
    opinion......because i know it comes from the heart. 
                                                 rfb

Although personally against guns (and the forms of violence they represent),
the key issue here is that of CHOICE. (as it is with the other hot issues of
today, i.e. abortion, drugs, etc...)  Take all the money spent on enforcement
and political debate and lobbying, and apply it towards educating people on
these issues... 

With guns, however, I do believe there should be a required liscencing, as with
automobiles.  You should be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the safety
features as well as proficiency with use, in order to "legally" own a gun. 
Granted this won't keep criminals from illegally owning firearms, however it
will allow for the general public to be more responsible.  Not supporting a
liscencing arrangement because it doesn't impact the criminals, is like saying
that we should stop testing and giving out driver's liscences because there are
people out there who drive illegally (i.e. without liscences.)

>    that I believe that one can best negotiate non-violent solutions if
>    one is coming from a position of power.

    I just want to say that that's a valid point of view, and I know you
    don't want to hurt anyone. I just disagree that the power has to be 
    implemented in the form of firearms. Beyond that, we're probably
    not going to agree, Mary. But that's all right with me. As someone
    said it's all opinions, and choice is the important issue.

    ...Robert

	Robert,

		Its getting increasingly difficult to remain
	cordial having been referrred to as macho, self righteous,
	and other assorted names and insinuations you've thrown my way.
	I question whether there is any point in replying to you,
	but I will give it one more shot. Please note that there are
	no names being thrown out by me,.. no insinuations that you
	are somehow less of a person or less evolved or less intelligent
	or any other derogatory comments. I would appreciate it if you
	would try to follow the lead from here on.
>
>    Okay, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing with. If you feel you've
>    got to arm yourself, fine, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. But
>    please don't try to tell me I should be doing the same. I'm not even
>    really arguing for gun control (though that may come as a surprise).

	As Mary pointed out, none of us is saying you must go out an arm
	yourself. Where did you get that idea?

	What we,.. or I anyway, am reacting to is the notion that some
	of you would disallow the choice. I want the choice.

>    No, I agree that rights are being eroded. The war on drugs in 
>    particular has set off all sorts of flagrant assaults on civil
>    rights. And we should work to reverse that trend. If your way
>    of fighting the trend is to arm yourself and propose armed 
>    insurrection, well, "don't you know that you can count me out". 
>    But I'm not saying you shouldn't do that. I am saying you might 
>    want to pursue more peaceful courses of action first.

	I didn't say that an armed uprising against the government
	was the only solution and that this must be done today.
	You really are misinterpreting a lot of what I write here,...
	please slow down and stick to what I write and not what you imagine
	I think.

	What I said is that such an uprising is a distinct possibility.
	Its not something I want to propose, or lead. Its something that
	I am afraid could happen soon in our society given the ranks
	of poor, homelss, jobless and at least "economicalyy oppressed"
	peoples of this country. There are plenty of very violent and
	angry people who could take it upon themselves to lead such an
	insurrection. And as Bush and company veto legislation to extend
	unemployment benefits while simultanbeously using our peace dividend
	to bail out his son and the S&L gang,.. where is the justice for the
	guy in the street who wants to work, can't get a job,.. and can't
	feed himself or his family? But you know, across town, they're
	having a banquet for the cheif of staff...and his tax payer
	supplemeneted travel schedule has him just a wee bit too busy
	to take any question from the poor homelse jobless person in the
	street.

	The current social conditions in this country mirror the conditions
	the preceded the bloodiest revolution in history,.. a la France.
	It is exactly these conditions that have me so concerned that
	the possibility for an uprising exists,.. really. Couple this
	with the onslaught of further "war on civil rights" activities,
	enough to raise the ire of even the employed masses,.. and where
	is it all leading? Hopefully not to a bloody revolution,.. hopefully,
	but history screams with examples that have lead nowhere else.

	To me, these possibilities are increasing in probability with
	every "screw the poor", and every "screw the middle class" executive
	decision Bush makes. An oh yeah,. lets not forget to "screw civil
	rights".

	But don't mistake my fear that something will happen with a
	wish or a want for it to happen. And please don't lecture me on
	pursuing more peaceful options. I am. What I am commenting on here
	are my observations of todays society and where we might be going.
	Ask me where I want us to go,.. ask me where I wish we would
	go and I'm sure you'll agree with everything I say,.. as I agree
	with all of your staements of "wouldn't it be better if we weren't 
	so violoent?" Sh*t yeah! Wouldn't that be nice! Where do I sign up
	to help make it happen?

>	What are the other choices? Would you rather watch your female friend
>	get raped by these guys?

>    I'm going to get wiped for saying this, but, yes, maybe, in some
>    circumstances, it might be preferable, if the alternative is a 
>    vigilante on-the-spot death sentence against a fellow human.

	No way aare you going to get wiped for saying that man!
	That is your free will and free choice on how you want to
	deal with that situation. Whatever moral or ethical or religous
	or logical basis you use for making that decision is fine with
	me. You obvioulsy have this image of me in your head as someone
	who wants to attack your position. That is so far from where 
	I'm coming from it isn't even funny.

	My only question is if I had decided to react differently,
	do you deny me that choice? Can you really say that I am 
	promoting violence by defending her or myself. I for one
	do not equate defending yourslef when faced with death or
	violence,.. to being a violent person. There is a big difference
	in my mind between acting in self defense, and being a violent
	person. Perhaps there is no distinction to you. 

>... re Luby's scenario
>     It might have been. It could also be that as soon as the guy saw 
>     your gun, you'd have been the first victim.

	True. Very possible. I better know what I'm doing when I pull
	out that gun eh?

>    You seem very experienced in these matters, and if this is the way
>    such situations have turned out for you in the past, then I'll allow
>    that that's what happens. But it seems to me that the presence of 
>    a gun in the house could steer events in all sorts of ways, not 
>    all of them ending with the intruder taking to his heels. What you're
>    saying is that the intruders would rather run than cause injury,

	I'm with you up to that point.... but I'm not saying that 
	an intruder would rather run than cause injury. I'm saying
	that an intruder would rather run than *BE* injured. There
	are definitely plenty of "intruders" who would rather cause
	injury than run. Some are out for nothing but....

>	 but
>    that you, in contrast, the solid upright citizen, will readily pull 
>    the trigger to cause injury or death to a fellow human. 

	Casting me into a bad light again,.. and wrongfully so. What
	I said I would do is to fire an indiscrimanant shot, not aimed
	at the intruder so as to scare them off. If it aint werkin',
	and they seem intent on causing me or my family harm despite
	the warning shot,.. then I would take aim. Its called self defense.

	> How does that make you feel?

	It makes me feel like I'm answering someone's questions who 
	doesn't even take the time to read what I write in the first place.

>	 And don't answer this with talk about "scum" who no 
>    longer deserve human consideration. Those people are your brothers.

	The ones who never came to my house for rape/murder/robbery
	are my brothers and sisters. The ones who run when I fire the warning
	shot are just second cousins who I don't even phone regularly.
	The ones who keep coming at me with intent to harm even after
	having heard the warning shot,.. they are scum. Again, self defense.

>    come to such a situation was when I got mugged on my first visit to 
>    this country. I was mad as hell at those guys, but it never crossed 
>    my mind to want to "blow the scum away". If I'd had a gun and used it
>    I suspect I'd still be traumatized by the death I'd caused. Instead
>    I got away with body intact, and minus a camera. Surprisingly, I
>    still came to live here anyway. In other words what could have been
>    a life-shaping experience is instead just something that happened to
>    me a long time ago. I think I actually prefer it that way.

	OK so now I'm ready to kill for a @#$%^& camera!!
	You sure know how to tempt a flame. If the truth
	be known, I would gladly give my pocket money and
	my briefcase and my camera and my watch before I would
	consider using my gun. However, I would not gladly give up
	my life, the life of a friend or loved one, nor would I 
	gladly allow my wife girlfriend daughter or acquaintance to
	be traumatized by rape. In those conditions, the rules of the
	game change for me. I guess I have this line drawn in the sand
	in my mind. I guess that makes me an extremely violent and undesirable
	person in your opinion.

	But this is way off the topic really. The decisions any one of
	us make in any given situation are irrelevant to the fact that
	life threatening situations occur and exist everyday. Its a sad
	state of affairs, and one that we should effect change on in
	whatever way we can. This does not preclude us from defending
	ourselves. Just don't try to rape my wife and you don't have
	to worry about me.

>    A woman of my acquaintance was in a "do or die" situation when two
>    men broke into her apartment and proceeded to threaten her with
>    knives. Maybe, just maybe, the unpleasantness that ensued might
>    have been avoided if she'd had a gun in the apartment. But she'd
>    have to have been waiting inside the door with the gun loaded and
>    cocked, and she'd have to have been prepared to fire without asking
>    questions. In practice she'd have had to go get the gun from wherever
>    it lived, before it'd do her any good.  She now feels that if she'd
>    had a gun, she'd be dead now, because that would have made her more of
>    a threat. In the event, she suffered a lot of pain, but survived, and
>    finally got to see the criminal justice system deal with both guys.

	This is off the point too. I'm glad she lived to see the
	next day. I don't have any criticism like "she should
	have had a gun and used it". What she did and decided
	to do, she is free to do. I do not deny her or anyone else their
	choices in these matters.

>    I'm rambling on far longer than I intended. What I'm trying to say
>    is if you want to arm yourselves, go ahead. But please spare us the
>    macho posturing, the "waste the assholes" threats, the "my guns make
>    me a man". If you want to fight for rights, go ahead. I'm right 
>    behind you. But don't confuse that fight with a fight for physical
>    supremacy. I know that's a fight I'd lose. But I'm secure enough 
>    in my life, my home and my family not to care about that. Perhaps 
>    that's the difference between us.

	Try to reafrain from this and maybe we can actually conduct
	a rational discussion of this issue.

	By the by to me the issue is still the revoking of the
	right to bear arms. Robert does't seem to be on a campaign
	to revoke that right, and so I don't really have an argument
	with him. He does seem to be on a slight smear the / campaign
	which I do have an argument with,.. but I'm hpoing that will
	come to a close shortly. He is also under the mistaken impression
	that I am on a "Arm yourself" campaign. Wrong. I'm on a "don't
	take away my right to bear arms" campaign.

	For the record,

		I would support:

		- Legislation requiring waiting periods before purchasing
		  any gun,.. not just hand guns. They're all the same,.. they
		  all can kill,.. and people's state of mind should be
		  checked before allowing them to posess a deadly weapon.

		- Legislation that dictates that training and testing
		  for all (would be) gun owners such that they can operate
		  the tool porperly without inadvertantly inuring themselves
		  or others.

		- Legislation that dictates that the owners of guns must
		  be trained and tested such that they are able to hit 
		  their targets with high degree of accuracy. It is obviously
		  too dangerous to have these guns in the hands of people
		  who can't aim them. If they're just as likely to miss
		  as they are to hit, then they are more likely to cause
		  injury than to prevent it.

		- Anyone acting in self defense 

		I would not support:

		- Legislation that says you can't own any guns,.. only the
		  government can

		- Legislation that says the government can own this gun
		  but you can't

		- Anyone perpetrating, or contemplating perpetrating violent
		  acts.

							/Bill

    
    ummmmm, can we try to remember who we are and the kind sorts of things
    we like to say we stand for?  i think we are gettting a little carried
    away here on all sides...  everyone is so hot to make thier point that
    we are offending without intending to and taking offense where none
    was offered...  it's an emotional issue and tempers can flare but let's 
    try and keep it focused on the issue and not the personalities...
    
    once upon a time in another topic we were discussing the possibility
    of violence at abortion clinics by intelligent adults who claim not to
    endorse violence...  when tempers flare, it can happen...  
    
    i'm not saying that anyone is running the risk of getting punched in
    the nose here, but some of the words i'm reading, on all sides, are 
    starting to get pretty inflammatory...
    
    i like an argument as much as the next person, but this is starting to
    turn into a pissing contest, imho...
    
    ok...  i'll shut up now...
    
    					da ve
    
    ps.  i am speaking for myself at this point and NOT as a moderator...

Bill,

I truly apologize if I offended you. You're right that I have jumped
to some conclusions not justified by what you and others have written 
here. Some of the things I said were triggered by things I've read
and heard elsewhere, and obviously I shouldn't hold you responsible
for anything said by others who might agree with you on some issues.
You're not trying to force me to arm myself; I accept that. By the
same token, I don't regard a blind adherence to gun control as the
single best solution to out society's ills. I just want people to
be more trusting of each other. I know you regard that as idealistic,
but I hope you agree that it would be desirable.

Anyway beyond that I want our discussions to be cordial and again
I apologize if you think I've been guilty of less than rational 
debate.

...Robert

    Thanks Robert
    
    	I was a little taken back,. but your explanation suffices.
    	There have been a lot of things going on around this issue
    	outsied of our conversation here,.. and I can see where its
    	easy to bring come external context into it.
    
    	In any event,.. on with the show,...
    
    							/Bill
    
    	PS Hey da ve
    
    	PFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!! Where'd ya get that Am anyway
    dooood?
    
    	:-)
    

    
    whats the big idea telling me to PFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!????????
    
    		:^) :^) :^)  
    
    	ok... ok... so make it an Am7 then...  ;^)
    
    		da i_refuse_to_be_offended_or_accept_any_shit_cuz_i'm_in
    			_too_good_a_mood ve :^)

    I just got my permit to carry today.... typical woman... my first
    thought was.. "gee, now I have to buy a new purse".. :-)
    
    mary

>   <<< Note 210.68 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>
>                       -< time for a new pocketbook... >-
>
>    I just got my permit to carry today.... typical woman... my first
>    thought was.. "gee, now I have to buy a new purse".. :-)
    
    Let me guess.  Leather, right?
    
    ;-)
    
    tim
    

>   <<< Note 210.68 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>
>                       -< time for a new pocketbook... >-
>
>    I just got my permit to carry today.... typical woman... my first
>    thought was.. "gee, now I have to buy a new purse".. :-)
    


   Congrats, mary.

Just the other day I was wondering if ya had heard anything yet, now I know.


Shawn
    

    Thank you...   I'm in shopping mode now.  Got any suggestions?

re   <<< Note 210.71 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>
                         -< yep... leather it is ;-) >-

>    Thank you...   I'm in shopping mode now.  Got any suggestions?


	.44 magnum.

	That should take care of most problems!

    Who makes it?  
    
    And can a poor, delicate, little ole country gal like me work the
    slide? 
    
    There are so many... Glock, Ruger, Colt, Smith and Wesson... 
    
    I want something that looks so scary that I'll never, ever have to actually
    use it... 

re:   <<< Note 210.73 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

       
   > And can a poor, delicate, little ole country gal like me work the
   > slide? 

  I sure you could work any slide, it's the "kick" that'll get ya!
    
    
>There are so many... Glock, Ruger, Colt, Smith and Wesson... 
 
  Colt has a new piece out called the Anaconda, (most of theirs are named
after snakes 8-), it's a 44 magnum revolver. There is a feature article on it
in the latest issue of American Rifleman.
   
>    I want something that looks so scary that I'll never, ever have to actually
>    use it... 


 This piece is scary looking!

Shawn

    I guess I don't understand the need for a gun in the home. I never even
    lock my doors or windows. I have carried a handgun while backpacking down
    south, though. But that was to keep the rednecks at bay. They don't 
    exactly cotton to no Yankees in their swamps.
    
    Gerry

A few weeks ago I fired a 454 Casell.  My wrist was hurting for a few
days after that - now that beast, which I believe is the largest hand
gun made, is BIG.  Makes a 45 look little :)

just thought I'd tell you about that - 
bob

    You should have seen me trying to work the slide on an H&K... it was
    really funny. :-)  Hey!  Thats a good idea actually... any scary
    dude that saw me trying to do that would fall down laughing, shake
    his head and walk away. :-)
    I can work the slide on the Baretta though... but it wasn't new..
    The kickback on a Casell would probably land me in another country. :-)
    Did someone say 'flinch'? 
    
    Someone asked me the other day why I want a gun if I never want to use
    it.  I told them that it's a lot like keeping a plunger in your house
    ... you never want to use that either but there are times when you
    might be glad it's there. :-)
    

>    Someone asked me the other day why I want a gun if I never want to use
>    it.  I told them that it's a lot like keeping a plunger in your house
>    ... you never want to use that either but there are times when you
>    might be glad it's there. :-)
    
8-) 8-) 8-)

good one mary!

Re: .77

>    The kickback on a Casell would probably land me in another country. :-)
>    Did someone say 'flinch'? 

	Think of it as a non-violent way to use a gun to get out of dangerous
situation!  A mugger accosts you, you pull the Casell, fire at the ground, and
suddenly, you're across town --- no problem!  :-)

Mark

    Good thinking, Mark :-) .... and a cheap way to travel too... 

another thing to think about if you go with the .44 magnum you may have to 
buy a much bigger purse. ;-)

:-Chuck

another thing to think about if you go with the .44 magnum you may have to 
buy a much bigger purse. ;-)

:-Chuck

>             <<< Note 210.82 by COOKIE::FREIWALD "Teach Peace!" >>>
>
>
>another thing to think about if you go with the .44 magnum you may have to 
>buy a much bigger purse. ;-)
>
>:-Chuck


You obviously haven't seen the size of Mary's purse(suitcase):-):-):-)

Geoff

    
    forget the purse...  just get a big ol' John Wayne type of holster
    to strap down to your leg...  when they see you strolling down the
    street with that hanging off your hip and those spurs a-janglin'
    with each step, the most you'll get from any ne'er-do-wells would be 
    a polite "howdy ma'am!"   :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    					da ve

    re last
    hey you can still do that in COlo!
    
    livin in the wild wild west rfb

    Yeah, get a .44 magnum!  I'd love to hear you rattle off the Clint
    Eastwood "what's it gonna be, PUNK" speech.

    Don

hey now RFB,

you can still do that in New Hampshire too.

fyi,
bob

    Really Bob?
    I thought only a few western states still had the "can carry
    un-concelled" laws???
    rfb who remembers 30-30's inbetween harley forks in AZ. (nice guys!!)

    I thought most of the laws were to prohibit carrying of concealed
    weapons.... and carrying an "unconcealed" weapon was generally legal
    procatice most everywhere...

    don't think so /....in Ga. you can't walk down the street with a
    pistol strapped on yer leg...in Colo and AZ you can (and apparently in
    NH too!)
                              rfb who onced walked into a bar with a pistol
    on the hip after being in the mts for 14 days, felt like a pocket knife
    by then, and had to disarm whilst drinking, just like in Tombstone
    during the OK caral days!

Yeah rilly RFB,

you can do it -  and a person I knew who worked for DEC in salem used to do
it for fun (his fun was to have cops chasing him and the arguments that
ensued :)

as for what slash said - I don't believe you can do it in Mass.

somewhat related:
In a gun shop in Milford the guy has a big sign before you enter:
check guns and removed ski masks 

seeya
bob

ps.  rfb,  glad to hear your other half is ok.  what a scare that
must've been.

ROULET::DWEST 
    
    Now da ve  ... that wouldn't be ladylike at all, now would it?  Why
    ... what would the dear Sisters say if they saw me like that after
    all those years of teaching me to sit with my knees together and 
    not to wear black patent leather shoes.   
    
    No... a lady has to exercise a little discretion.  :-)
    
    Instead of "make my day".. how does "now go away, dear" sound?

    rfb
    
    I too am very glad to hear that your wife is ok.  Dave and I both wish
    her well.
    
    mary

    
    .92 by Mary...
    
    yeah...  i guess you're right, Mary...  you're just not the "smile when
    you say that" type...  although i think a few rinestones and/or sequins
    would make it a bit more ladylike! :^) :^) :^)  either way would make
    quite a fashion statement though! :^)
    
    					da ve

    I was about to say something like, "I haven't read any of
    this topic and I think...."  something didn't feel right
    about that.  More after I read the preceeding replys.
    
    KenB
    

    As much as I like to understand gun control, as much as I value
    all the opinions expressed in grateful, I faded at .44 ;^)
    
    I feel gun control is a personal issue.  To each her/his own.
    I wish we could not have to concern ourselves with it, but...

    	"People feel rights,"
    	 Mighty Mouse spoke for almost all
    	 who gathered on the steps of city hall.

    	"What right have they?"
    	"Yeah"
    	"When did we say?"
    	"Yeah"
    	"Where is their power?"
    	"Yeah"
    	"Who lets them say?"
    	"Yeah"
    	"Why are they the ones?"
    	"Yeah"
     		 
   	 free or "freeze," 
    	 let us have the guns.

    	 It is we, who hold the key;
    	 we must be the ones.
	 With open arms, 
    		arms for hugging,
         	arms for war, 
    		arms to protect
    		the corner store,
    			the kids,
    			the anything thats needed by our ids
    	 we welcome all, 
 	 who will not bring us harm.

    	 And just in case, 
    	 as we please, we'll keep our right to arms.

    	 People feel rights;
    	 bullets please,
    	 we'll take all of these,
    	 and keep them from the ones,
    	 who squeeze the trigger slowly,
    	 whose shots are simply charms,
    	 whose anger pulls the trigger,
    	 whose haste makes waste,
    	 and harms.

         Not quite rid of ammo, arms, and harm.
    	 It isn't that they missed a few,
    	 It's only due to something new,
    	 Lets make it something outlaws do.
    	 The greater rights of many,
    	 are something more than individuals.

    Apologies in advance for being prescriptive:

    Think globally: If the pen is mightier than the sword, what's a gun?
    		    Understand that it is *impossible* to legislate
    		    or otherwise decree and achieve disarmament at 
    		    any level; be it a law against Saturday night specials, 
    		    or atom bombs.  Try to get people to think about
    		    the future.

    Act locally:  Eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, and dodge
    		  all bullets.  Stay in touch with people around you.
    		  If someone you know has a gun, shoot it, and enjoy it,
    	          if you're so inclined; but at least shoot it. 
    	          If anyone you know talks about their plans to 
    	          get violent with their gun(s), take it seriously. 

          

    over the weekend I went shooting with my friend....it was a Glock 
    model 21 45 caliber acp....WOWOW what a rush ! loud as all hell too !
    we put a target at @50' and I was surprised I hit the the damn thing
    with 10 of it 13 or 14 bullets it holds ! I had never shot a handgun
    before, and it has been a long time from the last time I shot any kind
    of firearm (@15 years, a 22 rifle)....I don't think I'd ever get a gun
    because I had never been so scared before (holding a load gun that
    seemed to be so touchy on the trigger, what kept running through my
    mind was shooting myself in the foot ! I take this as a sign from God
    telling me "put that damn thing down before you get hurt !"
    
    
    	Chris

    :-)
    
    You do have to be so careful, Chris... it's nothing to be taken
    lightly... thats for sure.  
    
    At the range,... the biggest rush I got was when I found out that I 
    could actually hit the target and only missed it once.  
    
    I was always so lousy at sports in school and it came as a complete 
    surprise that I could actually participate in a sport without messing 
    up (for once in my life).  
    
    .... I don't know... it doesn't seem to require muscles or dexterity or
    endurance... just a steady hand and ... an almost 'metaphysical' sense
    of ... (this is going to sound silly, but) 'directing' the bullet
    towards the bullseye.   I don't know... if you can get past the fear,
    it can be fun.  A lot of the fear is conditioned into us (I think
    anyway).
    
    mary     

I know that this is not a popular topic here but I thought that I'd post it
for those who are interested.

		Dave




In a study conducted by the National Association of the Chiefs of
Police (NACP) through its American Law Enforcement Survey for 1989,
in which 16,259 chiefs of police, sheriffs and law-enforcement command
personnel were polled with a list of 30 questions, it was determined
the overwhelming majority of officers support the right of private
arms ownership, and agreed that gun bans had little effect on crime.
 
CCRKBA compiled the following responses:
 
        -- Do you believe that law-abiding citizens should have the
        right to purchase any type of firearm for sport or
        self-defense under state laws that now exist?
 
        68.71% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you believe that the banning of firearms (handguns, shotguns,
        or rifles) will reduce the ability of criminals to obtain such
        weapons.
 
        90.18% answered NO.
 
        -- Do you believe that the banning of private ownership of
        firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms?
 
        87.62% answered NO.
 
        -- Would you agree that most criminals obtain their weapons
        illegally?
 
        89.94% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you believe that a waiting period to purchase a handgun
        or any type of firearm will have any effect on criminals getting
        firearms?
 
        70.91% answered NO.
 
        -- A "military type" of long gun (Rifle, shotgun, etc.) is
        now being described as one being able to hold more than five
        rounds of ammunition. It must be fired by pulling the trigger
        each time. The legal description would cover many semi-automatic
        weapons. Do you believe that banning such weapons would reduce
        the likelihood of criminals obtaining such weapons.
 
        86.73% answered NO.
 
        -- Some states have longer waiting periods than others. Would
        you agree that it should be a state mandated law rather than
        a federal regulation as to firearms purchase requirements?
 
        62.64% answered STATE.
 
        -- Do you favor the training and issuance of semi-automatic
        firearms (sidearms) that carry 16-17 rounds over the present
        police  revolver?
 
        85% answered YES.
 
        -- Historically, the militia is "all men between the ages of
        16 and 45". Under the present armed forces defense of the
        United States, the National Guard must be able to mobilize
        in three days to back up our regular armed forces worldwide.
        Therefore, the only defense would be the "state militia"
        in time of war. Would you agree, that for the sake of the
        defense of the United States, citizens should be allowed to
        have their own rifles, shotguns and handguns for emergencies,
        natural or man made?
 
        85.69% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you feel that the system of criminal justice has broken
        down to the point where it is the inability to deal with
        criminals caught by police (prosecution and imprisonment)
        that is the major cause of crime in America?
 
        86.46% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you think the courts are soft on criminals in general?
 
        95.60% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you believe the media coverage of police-involved shootings
        encourages the riots or disturbances that have often followed
        publication or televised?
 
        90.12% answered YES.
 
        -- Do you think that the media that depicts violence, especially
        on TV, while at the same time encouraging the banning of firearms
        ownership for law-abiding citizens for sport or
        self-defense, is hypocritical?
 
        89.95% answered YES.
 

Thanks, Dave!

Finally some con-guntrol statistics I can sink my brain into... 8-)

- jeff

    
    What about this idea (heard discussed at one of those radical parties
    lately):   If people in Russia were allowed to legally own firearms,
    the present worry about their Army overthrowing the parliment (?)
    decision to strip Yeltsin of power would be mute.  In other words,
    because only the army and other decreed groups can have firearms, they
    have power we would never see in this country.  
    i dunno - it's interesting to mull over
    
    

The Chiefs of Police, eh?

  Those same folks who introduced us to the ideas of "Tye-dyes and
stealies are probable-cause" and "People's rights are not nearly as
important as the war-on-drugs (tm)"??????????????????????

Although I do agree with a few of their opinions posted there...

Dave

    re .101
    
    Most people don't understand how power is balanced the way you do, 
    Carole...
    
    mary

    i agree, interesting stuff...
    
    however, Jeff, these aren't really statistics on gun control...  they
    are statistics about opinions on gun control...  important distinction
    to be made there...
    
    Dave, i thought that too...  got a little chuckle out of it...  these
    same folks that are the adversary in the War on Some Drugs are now
    allies in the gun control argument?  reminiscent of the old saw,
    "politics make strange bedfellows"...
    
    Mary, while i agree that an armed populace would be something
    significant to consider in a situation like Carol brought up, i hardly
    think that it's a "balance" of power...  not too many armed citizens
    that i am aware of have tanks, rocket propelled grenades, mortars,
    howitzers, flamethrowers and various other pieces of heavy artillery!
    :^) :^) :^)
    
    				da ve_who_believes_in_private_ownership_
    				of_firearms_but_ain't_about_to_stare_down_
    				a_tank!
    consider

COMPARISON OF ROBBERY AND HOMICIDE RATES BETWEEN SELECTED U.S. CITIES
WITH RESTRICTIVE AND NONRESTRICTIVE FIREARMS LAWS/ENFORCEMENT (Based
on 1991 F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports and City Police):

No gun law, in any city, state, or nation, has ever reduced violent
crime, or slowed its rate of growth, compared to similar jurisdictions
without such  laws. Indeed, most such laws are defended with
citations of the number of  persons denied lawful access to handguns,
while crime trends are ignored. With  a virtual handgun ban,
enforced with federal aid, from 1976 to 1991, the  murder rate in
Washington, D.C., has risen 200%, with a 300% rise in handgun-
related homicide, as handgun use went from less than 60% of killings
to 80%.  Since it became a felony to go outside New York to evade New
York City's virtual  handgun ban, the city's homicide rate has risen
three times faster than the rest  of the country's. With less than 3%
of the nation's population, NYC reports nearly  one-seventh of the
nation's handgun-related homicides. The two crimes most  feared by
Americans are murder in the course of another crime (50%) and
robbery (43%) (1978 DMI poll); robbery and robber-murder rates are
consistently higher in cities with restrictive firearms laws and/or
hostile  enforcement of such laws. Examples among cities over 250,000
population.  Overall, big cities: Homicide: 26.7 per 100,000;
Robbery: 905.2

CITIES: RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS/ENFORCEMENT
Rates per 100,000
                     Homicide  Robbery
Washington, D.C.     80.6      1215.0
Detroit              59.3      1309.4
Baltimore            40.6      1439.6
Cleveland            34.3      1006.5
Chicago              32.9      1557.3
Newark               31.8      1880.9
New York City        29.3      1340.3
Los Angeles          28.9      1117.9

CITIES: LENIENT GUN LAWS/ENFORCEMENT
                     Homicide  Robbery
Phoenix              12.9      346.2
Oklahoma City        10 3      187 0
Austin               10.3      327.0
El Paso              9.3       281.9
Colorado Springs     8.7       134.3
Wichita              7.8       458.3
Tucson               5.8       214.3

Re: .99
Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that information?  I mean,
where did you see it published?

Re: .101
An interesting point about the Russian Army.  In 1984 (oddly enough) a 
member of my group was a Russian immigrant, who had spent some time in
the Russian Army.  He had left Russia only six months earlier, and was
still struggling with English. He told me, quite seriously, that although the Russian
Army is issued weapons, they are NOT normally given any ammunition for
them until they are ordered into action, such as Afghanistan at that time.

The weren't trusted to be responsible with it.  True story.  The guy's
name was Yuri Shtil, and I think he left DEC a couple years later.  Great
engineer.

tim

re: .105

those statistics don't tell very much

as a minimum, for the "CITIES: RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS/ENFORCEMENT", you should
compare the crime rates before and after the laws were passed, and then
compare them to the changes in the crime rates over the same period of time
in the nation as a whole

simply stating that a group of cities with restrictive laws have high crime
rates doesn't say much of anything; i'm sure the high crime rates were why
the laws were passed in the first place

granted, the paragraph does throw out a few statistics over time, but why
does it simply select a few?  present all of the statistics evenly

- rich

That's what I mean.  The information seems strongly slanted, which
makes me suspicious of the source...where did this come from?  Who
published it, and how do we know they're objective about the subject
material?

tim

and what about the 15 cities that were picked?  by what criteria were they
chosen?  there are a lot more than 15 cities in the us; of the cities with
strict laws you could have simply picked the 8 with the highest crime rates,
and of the cities with lenient laws, you could have simply picked the 7 with
the lowest crime rates

/r

    One of the great things about information is that anyone can go and
    look it up.  Try it sometime.

ROULET::DWEST 
    
    I know you don't understand, Dave.

Lessee...

Fact #1: New York City has restrictive gun control laws.
Fact #2: Hollis, NH doesn't have restrictive gun control laws.
Fact #3: New York City has more crime than Hollis, NH.

Conclusion:  Gun control laws cause lots of crime.

I think not.  Let's not compare apples and oranges.

I think private citizens should be allowed to own guns for personal
protection.  I also think there should be gun control laws surrounding
it because, (in my opinion), too many people in this country (I am
not refering to anyone in this file, or even anyone I know) are just
not responsible enough with something as dangerous as a gun...

But, then again, I'm a hopeless cynic...

Dave

    Cynic isn't the word I would have selected but that's neither here nor
    there.
    
    I've heard this argument before... that Americans are too violent and 
    uncivilized and psychotic to own guns.... that we 'can't be trusted'.
    
    It's the kind of talk one usually hears from the elite.  
    
    It doesn't matter anyway... things are the way they are... there's
    nothing to discuss, I guess.

I think that topic can be discussed rationally, although it can be difficult.  
For those of you who have responded, what has led you to your beliefs on gun
control?  Why the perception that these statistics are meant to mislead?  I'm 
not trying to lie to anyone here.  The information that I have posted is a
small amount of what has changed my postition on this topic.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would like to understand what your
positions are based on.

		Dave

>    I've heard this argument before... that Americans are too violent and 
>    uncivilized and psychotic to own guns.... that we 'can't be trusted'.
>    
>    It's the kind of talk one usually hears from the elite.  

...calling the opposition elitist - and that's the kind of talk one 
usually hears from someone who hasn't got a decent argument on which
to stand....but that's neither here nor there..;-) (I AM just kidding)

I also think the topic can be discussed rationally, but I thought that 
about Planned Parenthood, and look where that got me..;-)

>Why the perception that these statistics are meant to mislead?

Because you haven't attributed them to the source of publication.  Like
it or not, it makes a difference.

But I'm happy to describe my position on gun control.  For me, it's 
a matter of being consistent with the beliefs that I have held for all
my life.  These are beliefs that I formed while growing up, as a teenager
in the 60's, listening to people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King
talk of non-violence.  I am a life-long pacifist.  With no intentions
to judge the others around me, I perceive pacifism and non-violence to
be the only hope for peace and justice.  Conversely, advocacy of violence
as a means to any end is therefore, to me, completely without justice,
without justification, without decency or respect for others, and, in
other words, completely uncivilized.  IMHO, it is cynical to declare that
violence is the nature of humanity, and therefore we must be violent.

These aren't some neo-hippy affectations of an elitist yuppy - I have
always believed these things, and still do, irregardless of my social
stature.

Guns are tools of violence, in the purest sense.  Guns are uncivilized.
Guns are unnecessary.  Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
Guns ARE violence.

If I had my way, all guns would be banned forever.  They are useless.

tim

    Tim, if you had yer way, I guess I wouldn't have any venison in my
    freezer then, eh? %^)
    rfb
    

NAC::TRAMP::GRADY 
    
>-< Guns = violence! >-
    
    Wrong... humans = violence.
    
    I'm going to speak my peace and then I'm going to bow out of this
    conversation... two Stanleys are too confusing.
    
>...calling the opposition elitist - and that's the kind of talk one 
>usually hears from someone who hasn't got a decent argument on which
>to stand....but that's neither here nor there..;-) (I AM just kidding)

    I have no opposition... I don't oppose anyone.. and you're not kidding
    so why pretend that you are?
    
>But I'm happy to describe my position on gun control.  For me, it's 
>a matter of being consistent with the beliefs that I have held for all
>my life.  These are beliefs that I formed while growing up, as a teenager
>in the 60's, listening to people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King
>talk of non-violence.  I am a life-long pacifist.  With no intentions
>to judge the others around me, I perceive pacifism and non-violence to
>be the only hope for peace and justice.  
    
    Then there is no hope.
    
    >Conversely, advocacy of violence as a means to any end is therefore, to 
    >me, completely without justice, without justification, without decency 
    >or respect for others, and, in other words, completely uncivilized.  
    
    No one is advocating violence.  We are advocating empowerment of the
    individual.
    
    >IMHO, it is cynical to declare that violence is the nature of humanity, 
    >and therefore we must be violent.

    IMHO it is unrealistic to declare that violence is not a part of the
    nature of humanity and therefore pretend that it will just go away.
    
>Guns are tools of violence, in the purest sense.  Guns are uncivilized.
>Guns are unnecessary.  Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
>Guns ARE violence.

    No ... guns are machines used by men.  Violence isn't the last resort
    of the incompetent.. humanity uses violence on all levels... government
    as well as individuals.. to deny that fact is to deny reality.
      
>If I had my way, all guns would be banned forever.  They are useless.

    Of this I am quite sure... however... I don't think you will have your
    way and that is (to be sure) only my opinion.

mary

Hey rfb!

How can you eat that greazy stuff?  ;-)

There are issues surrounding the sportsman's use of guns that I can't
completely resolve.  Since I don't hunt or compete, I have no personal
use for them, but I do respect the intentions of those who do.  These
are not necessary activities in our society, but they are not totally
unacceptable, yet.  I think eventually they will become unacceptable, 
but unfortunately not in my lifetime.  I don't approve of violence
against animals, and over the past few years I have gradually backed 
away from eating meat, but I still do.  Consistency can be a challenge.

I do not view hunters as the rapists of nature, however.  All
of the hunters whom I've known have had a profound appreciation for
nature and a respect for the environment.  Hell, that's half the reason
they're out there.  rfb, I think you know I respect your opinions on
this subject, if only because of the 15 previous times we've gone around
this tree...

But, I object wholeheartedly to those who would argue that guns are a 
right of self defense, or somehow would protect the individual from
an abusive or oppressive government.  IMHO, that is quite naive.
The Bosnians have guns.  Gandhi didn't.  Guns don't protect people, 
people protect people.  We don't NEED them.

tim

    greasy?? deer's not greasy, I think maybe someone down thar in Fla.
    feed you some possum and told ya it was deer! %^)
    
    You know you and I respect each other, even if yer wrong! %^)
    (and I do mean the smiley)
    
    ya, if my daughter and PETA get there way and hunting is banned, 
    we'll be scrappin the deer off our fenders daily out here in colo
    
    peace, 
    rfb

Tim,

We have a difference of opinion and I don't think that will change.  I'm not a
pacifist but I don't go looking for trouble either.  If I have my way, people
who have not committed a crime will retain their right to choose a firearm as a
means of self defense.

		Dave

re: sources

I received .99 via internet mail and .105 is from an NRA publication.  The
original source is stated in each of those replies.

		Dave

re     <<< Note 210.105 by YNGSTR::STANLEY "I need a miracle every day..." >>>
                     -< Gun control and homicide/robbery >-

>Washington, D.C.     80.6      1215.0
>Detroit              59.3      1309.4
>Baltimore            40.6      1439.6
>Cleveland            34.3      1006.5
>Chicago              32.9      1557.3
>Newark               31.8      1880.9
>New York City        29.3      1340.3
>Los Angeles          28.9      1117.9
>
>CITIES: LENIENT GUN LAWS/ENFORCEMENT
>                     Homicide  Robbery
>Phoenix              12.9      346.2
>Oklahoma City        10 3      187 0
>Austin               10.3      327.0
>El Paso              9.3       281.9
>Colorado Springs     8.7       134.3
>Wichita              7.8       458.3
>Tucson               5.8       214.3

	How does the population of these cities compare?
	Seems like the ones in the first category have a much
	higher pop then the 2nd cat...

	

So much for a civilized discussion.

Mary, you have clearly crossed the line:

> I have no opposition... I don't oppose anyone.. and you're not kidding
> so why pretend that you are?

How dare you presume to tell me what I think, how I feel, what my 
intentions were when I wrote those words? How dare you question my
integrity, my honesty when I say in PLAIN ENGLISH: I AM KIDDING.
You have no right to make such spurilous comments about my intentions.
No right whatsoever.  If you get the feeling I'm insulted, you're
getting the right idea...

Two sides in the discussion of any topic who hold opposing points of
view can legitimately refer to each other as 'the opposition'.  If you
have to resort to picking semantics, defining the obvious and replaying
the same points, I should think you would bow out.  In short, if you
can't hold a civilized conversation, please stay out of it.

Don't you see that in our cynicism about the violent nature of humanity,
we insist on perpetuating that violence with an instrument whose only
purpose is violence?

The issue is not whether humans are intrinsically violent, but whether
we are to allow ourselves to continue to be violent and do nothing to 
change that trend.  Indeed, supporters of the so-called 'right to bear
arms' would not only maintain the violent status quo, they would 
encourage violence by encouraging the population to take up and bear 
tools of violence.  If you want to look for the source of the violent 
'nature' of humans, don't look at history, don't look at genetics, 
don't look at society, but look instead, in a mirror.  Your own argument,
your own attitude towards humanity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  
People are violent because they believe it is acceptable, natural, 
normal and unavoidable.  They subjugate their conscience, rationalize 
their violence and justify unthinkably uncivilized behaviour.  Violence 
is uncivilized, but unnecessary.  Violence is NOT acceptable, NOT 
natural, NOT normal, and completely avoidable.

When I look for violence itself, and at its purpetrators, I see 
incompetence.  Those who for reasons of ignorance, stupidity, 
unpreparedness, clumsiness or laziness choose to exercise their last 
resort: violence.  They choose it, but they don't have to.  That's why 
I hold that violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

Look at Bosnia.  Look at Rodney King.  Look at Dr. Gunn in Pensacola.
Are these examples of competent, civilized human behavior?

We have a choice.

tim

re:      <<< Note 210.122 by ZENDIA::FERGUSON "I got ramblin' on my mind" >>>
                         -< I don't like guns either >-

>	How does the population of these cities compare?
>	Seems like the ones in the first category have a much
>	higher pop then the 2nd cat...

These rates are per 100,000 people.

		Dave

re:      <<< Note 210.102 by DRINKS::WEISS "Beer -- It does a body good." >>>
                           -< Consider the source? >-

>  Those same folks who introduced us to the ideas of "Tye-dyes and
>stealies are probable-cause" and "People's rights are not nearly as
>important as the war-on-drugs (tm)"??????????????????????

What is source for those quotes?  I hadn't heard that.

		Dave

>	How does the population of these cities compare?
>	Seems like the ones in the first category have a much
>	higher pop then the 2nd cat...

uh, look a little closer:

>Rates per 100,000

so the rates are relative to the population size

but you could then use those statistics to claim that higher concentrations
of population have higher crime rates

- rich

re:              <<< Note 210.109 by ROCK::ROCK::FROMM "GUMBO!!!" >>>
                             -< one more thing... >-

>and what about the 15 cities that were picked?  by what criteria were they
>chosen?  there are a lot more than 15 cities in the us; of the cities with
>strict laws you could have simply picked the 8 with the highest crime rates,
>and of the cities with lenient laws, you could have simply picked the 7 with
>the lowest crime rates

I don't have the specific information as to how they were picked.  It was my
understanding that they are ranked via number of homicide/robbery per 100,000
people.

		Dave

re:      <<< Note 210.112 by DRINKS::WEISS "Beer -- It does a body good." >>>
                      -< How to lie with statistics, 101 >-

Dave,

Why do you think these statistics support a lie?

		Dave

>>  Those same folks who introduced us to the ideas of "Tye-dyes and
>>stealies are probable-cause" and "People's rights are not nearly as
>>important as the war-on-drugs (tm)"??????????????????????

>What is source for those quotes?  I hadn't heard that.

don't know if these were meant to be taken as exact quotes

however...

the NJ supreme court (i think that's the state) did recently rule that a
stealie was probable cause; i've heard this second hand, i have yet to get my
hands on the actual ruling

i know i've heard numerous examples of people basically stating that it's
ok to sacrifice individual liberties to win the "war on drugs"; i don't know
the exact words, or from whom, but i bet if i read thru the pittsburgh press
articles again i could find at least one example

- rich

re:              <<< Note 210.126 by ROCK::ROCK::FROMM "GUMBO!!!" >>>

>>Rates per 100,000

>so the rates are relative to the population size

>but you could then use those statistics to claim that higher concentrations
>of population have higher crime rates

No, I don't think this is so.  I believe that NYC has a higher population than
Washington, D.C. but it's rate per 100,000 is lower.

		Dave

    I took out some of this note to keep it somewhat short so please see
    note .99 for complete info...but it was just it source....
    I took out some of this note to keep it somewhat short so please see
    note .99 for complete info...but it was just it source....
    I took out some of this note to keep it somewhat short so please see
    note .99 for complete info...but it was just it source....
    I read these questions (from .99) and could only take them with a grain
    of sea salt.....
    
>            <<< NECSC::SYS_CLUSTER:[NOTES$LIBRARY]GRATEFUL.NOTE;1 >>>
>                 -< Take my advice, you'd be better off DEAD >-
>================================================================================
>Note 210.99                        Gun control                         99 of 113
>YNGSTR::STANLEY "Just one thing that I have to say" 102 lines  22-MAR-1993 16:51
>                            -< Police Chiefs Poll >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>CCRKBA compiled the following responses:
> 
>        -- Do you believe that law-abiding citizens should have the
>        right to purchase any type of firearm for sport or
>        self-defense under state laws that now exist?
> 
>        68.71% answered YES.

	This is an easy question...no biggie as far as I can see.... 
	yeah why not !

>        -- Do you believe that the banning of firearms (handguns, shotguns,
>        or rifles) will reduce the ability of criminals to obtain such
>        weapons.
> 
>        90.18% answered NO.

	Hey I think we can all somewhat agree that this is true.....hell 
	they are criminals now ain't they
 
>        -- Do you believe that the banning of private ownership of
>        firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms?
> 
>        87.62% answered NO.

	Private ownership, I assume these are the good people not the 
	criminals who would not tell a soul(like the Chief of Police) 
	they had a gun to begin with....
 
>        -- Would you agree that most criminals obtain their weapons
>        illegally?
> 
>        89.94% answered YES.

	duh ! like they could get one legally ! well I guess some do
	like the one who don't have a record and really are not a criminal
	yet but they plan to be one very soon ! but thats the next question.
	 
>        -- Do you believe that a waiting period to purchase a handgun
>        or any type of firearm will have any effect on criminals getting
>        firearms?
> 
>        70.91% answered NO.
 
	How would they answer yes....a criminal would not go the legal route
	unless he/she is not one yet like stated above....but how are we
	to know what plans this person plans to do after getting the OKEDOKY
	to have one....so it a crap shoot (pun ?)

>        -- A "military type" of long gun (Rifle, shotgun, etc.) is
>        now being described as one being able to hold more than five
>        rounds of ammunition. It must be fired by pulling the trigger
>        each time. The legal description would cover many semi-automatic
>        weapons. Do you believe that banning such weapons would reduce
>        the likelihood of criminals obtaining such weapons.
> 
>        86.73% answered NO.

	same as above....
 
>        -- Some states have longer waiting periods than others. Would
>        you agree that it should be a state mandated law rather than
>        a federal regulation as to firearms purchase requirements?
> 
>        62.64% answered STATE.

	and 37.36% said Federal.....gee what the +/- on this poll...:')
	but rilly is this such a problem ? I mean if you are not a
	criminal (read a person that would not be allow to own a gun)
	then waiting for a back ground check is at most just a bother.
	I'm sure someone can get more info on my credit rating then my 
	criminal back ground in less time anyway.

>        -- Do you favor the training and issuance of semi-automatic
>        firearms (sidearms) that carry 16-17 rounds over the present
>        police  revolver?
> 
>        85% answered YES.

	is this a question for COPS ? like yeah a COP should be trained in 
	using a gun that use 16 bullets.....if so I'd say sure if I were a
	COP ! and as far as I can tell (not being a big gun fan mind you)
	I've notice Westboro Cops carring those 13clip Glocks !

>        -- Historically, the militia is "all men between the ages of
>        16 and 45". Under the present armed forces defense of the
>        United States, the National Guard must be able to mobilize
>        in three days to back up our regular armed forces worldwide.
>        Therefore, the only defense would be the "state militia"
>        in time of war. Would you agree, that for the sake of the
>        defense of the United States, citizens should be allowed to
>        have their own rifles, shotguns and handguns for emergencies,
>        natural or man made?
> 
>        85.69% answered YES.

	yes ! hell yes ! if we were under attack from some great foe
	we would not need to wait for a license to own a gun, Im sure I 
	could get one in a minute at a low low war sale that Caldors would
	be having right after they cleared the shelfs of the Christmas
	stuff they have up in July !

>        -- Do you feel that the system of criminal justice has broken
>        down to the point where it is the inability to deal with
>        criminals caught by police (prosecution and imprisonment)
>        that is the major cause of crime in America?
> 
>        86.46% answered YES.

	why do I feel they stopped reading this question at the word
	DOWN....?
 
>        -- Do you think the courts are soft on criminals in general?
> 
>        95.60% answered YES.

	sure a cop would say yes ! and anyway aren't these people answering
	these questions the ones that seeming to want to knock down our 
	doors and take anything away they don't want us to have including
	our freedom ?
 
>        -- Do you believe the media coverage of police-involved shootings
>        encourages the riots or disturbances that have often followed
>        publication or televised?
> 
>        90.12% answered YES.

	same as above !
 
>        -- Do you think that the media that depicts violence, especially
>        on TV, while at the same time encouraging the banning of firearms
>        ownership for law-abiding citizens for sport or
>        self-defense, is hypocritical?
> 
>        89.95% answered YES.

	whos calling the kettle black here ? Cops can't live with them
    	can't live without them...

re:              <<< Note 210.129 by ROCK::ROCK::FROMM "GUMBO!!!" >>>

>the NJ supreme court (i think that's the state) did recently rule that a
>stealie was probable cause; i've heard this second hand, i have yet to get my
>hands on the actual ruling

Yes, I believe that this is true, but how does it relate to the Police Chiefs
poll as Dave Weiss had mentioned?

		Dave

    re .123
    
     Electronic media are dangerous things.  They sometimes provide for a 
    certain (unconscious/subconscious) level of protection from others by
    insulating the user from directly facing their correspondent.  This
    often leads to rude behavior and radically extreme overreactions.  Tim,
    your response is a case in point.
    
     Reading your note, I can just picture you; red-faced, steam coming
    from nose and ears, violently jabbing keystrokes, heart racing and
    blood pressure-caused capillaries bursting.  Not a pretty sight.
    
     Can you imagine yourself looking Mary in the eye and going on like
    that in person?  Isn't it more likely that you might have dealt with
    this differently if you were sitting next to her?  I think you would.
    *[Marv, how dare you presume to know what I would or wouldn't do?  Who
    [gave the right to ...]
    *Of course this phantom response has :-)'s all over it.
    
     Anyway, my point is that when we *know* that we are treading on thin
    emotional ice, we should take it easy and THINK a little more before we
    jump right in.  Heck the bytes weren't even dry on Mary's entry before
    you hurtled in cutting and slashing and stomping.  Hardly a pacific
    response.
    
     I plead guilty to past violations of my above stated premise. 
    However, I have for some time seen the errors of my ways and am now
    pure of heart and well-intended.  :-)
    
     Yer buddy,
    
    Marv
    

    hummm my editer is freaking out....so please forgive me....

> These rates are per 100,000 people.

And what the population density of these cities?  Putting 100,000 people
in 100 square miles is very different than 100K people in 5 square miles.

Dave

re:      <<< Note 210.134 by SLOHAN::FIELDS "and we'd go Running On Faith" >>>

>    hummm my editer is freaking out....so please forgive me....

I was wondering what was going on there. :-)  You do bring out some good points
though.  

		Dave

re:      <<< Note 210.135 by DRINKS::WEISS "Beer -- It does a body good." >>>
                      -< Gotta look at all the facts... >-

>> These rates are per 100,000 people.

>And what the population density of these cities?  Putting 100,000 people
>in 100 square miles is very different than 100K people in 5 square miles.

I don't know the population densities.  That is a good thing to look into.

		Dave

    re .137
      You've gotta be dense to live in any of those cities.  GRATEFUL
    noters being the exceptions.
    
    Marv
    

re:                    <<< Note 210.138 by XCUSME::MACINTYRE >>>

>      You've gotta be dense to live in any of those cities.  GRATEFUL
>    noters being the exceptions.

Ohhh, so that's what's meant by population density. :-)  Thanks Marv.

		Dave

> What is source for those quotes?  I hadn't heard that.

Dave Weiss -- Grateful -- March 23, 1993.  I was making a point that
(in my opinion) Chief's of Police's opinions are not one's I generally
agree with, nor do they seem (to me) to be shared by many people here.
BTW, I was very careful with my original statement about the C's-of Police
*introducing* these things.  It's up to the courts (not that I have
great faith in that, either) to delare these things okay, or not.
It was not meant to be a scientific statement of any form, just a 
sort of a personal, tounge-in-cheekish response..

> Why do you think these statistics support a lie?

It's not a "lie" per se.  I use that term because one of the books on 
the subjects of using statistics in whatever way suits your point is 
called "How To Lie With Statistics".  I think that the statistics were
being used to reach a conclusion that I don't agree with (that is that
stiffer gun control laws don't reduce/cause more crime).  I'm certainly
not saying that those statistics refute that conclusion, I'm just saying
that I don't think they prove anything.


Dave (who wishes he were as eloquent in writing as Tim, but I do share
much of his opinion, so I'm glad he's here).

> rates per 100k


Oh, so, say I live in a small town, of, oh, 10 people.  One of those 10
people take a gun and shoots 2 people.  

2 in 10 are dead.

scaling up to "people killed per 100k" would make my small town's murder
rate at 20,000 per 100k ... 

not a useful comparision, IMO...

populate density plays a BIG part in this, I think...

>>but you could then use those statistics to claim that higher concentrations
>>of population have higher crime rates

>No, I don't think this is so.  I believe that NYC has a higher population than
>Washington, D.C. but it's rate per 100,000 is lower.

that's exactly what i mean by lying with statistics; you're using a limited
sample space specifically chosen to prove or disprove a certain theory; in this
case, you're sample space is 2 cities; you pick out one which has a higher
population and a lower crime rate than a second; hence, my "theory" is
disproven, according to your logic

i never attempted to say that this theory was correct or not; i simply stated
that you could use the statistics presented in .105 to make it look correct

i don't have precise population figures on hand, but as a whole i think that
the group of high crime cities chosen (washington, detroit, baltimore,
cleveland, chicago, newark, nyc, los angeles), are much higher in population
than the group of low crime cities chosen (phoenix, oklahoma city, austin,
el paso, colorado springs, wichita, tucson); the article posted comes to the
conclusion that because the high crime cities selected have more restrictive
gun control laws than the lower crime cities, than either the gun contol is
causing the high crime or isn't helping to lower it; i simply suggested an
alternative way to interpret the statistics

the point that i was trying to make was that you can selectively use and abuse
statistics to paint a biased picture; does higher population correlate with
higher crime rate?  perhaps, but i don't really know; from the limited data
presented, you might be able to come to that conclusion; but to more accurately
come to a conclusion, you should do a scatter graph of all of the cities in the
us; on one axis put population, and on another axis put per capita crime rate;
then fit the data to a curve; but even this is open to interpretation; what do
you use for population?  pure population or population density?  depending on
how you make your initial assumptions, the results might come out quite
differently; and if you wanted to prove a given point, you'd probably choose
your initial assumptions and methods of data calculation carefully to get a
result that best supported your point

- rich

>Yes, I believe that this is true, but how does it relate to the Police Chiefs
>poll as Dave Weiss had mentioned?

i dunno; how 'bout dw answer that one?

/r

    this is one of the discussions i usually try to stay out of but since i
    opened my mouth once already i'll do it one more time before i bow
    out...
    
    my position?   i support the right of the people to keep and bear
    arms...
    
    that being said, i am a pacifist as well...  i believe that violence
    is, to paraphrase Tim, the last resort of the incompentent/ignorant/
    terminally frustrated...  i do believe that people have the right to act
    in self defense and take steps for self preservation, but to me this
    does not necesitate gun ownership...  if someone wants to kill me bad
    enough, i will die...  that's all there is to it...  wheterh or not i
    have a gun will not matter since i like to think that i would not use
    one on another human being...  (exception!!  if someone were to attack
    a member of my family and threaten thier life, i MIGHT be inclined to
    use lethal force against them...  can't say for certain since that
    hasn't happened)...
    
    i believe violence is a part of the human animal, but like other traits
    in other animals, it is not one we have to keep...  it can be, and imho
    should be, "bred out"... (note i am NOT advocating selctive breeding! 
    rahter education to change people's thought process around violent
    behaviors)...
    
    i don't believe guns=violence...  i don't believe people=violence...
    i believe fear and ignorance can and often does lead to violence...
    eliminating the tools for violence does not eliminate the means, or the 
    violence...
    
    i believe private citizens should be allowed to have firearms for thier
    personal uyse (like we should be able to grow pot or brew beer for
    personal use)...
    
    i believe violence is something we shoudl work to eliminate in
    society...
    
    i don't believe they have to be the same issue...
    
    					da ve

RE: .144  - da ve

I just want to say one thing before I bow out - 



what he said ;^)


Glennnn

    Marv,
    
    Good point.  I got offended, perhaps too easily.  Incidentally, even
    though I have never met Mary in person, I'm pretty sure I would have
    used very similar words in person.  I talk like that.  Ask Mystery.
    ;-)
    
    Chris,
    
    You made several good points.  Several times.;-)  Funky editor....
    
    da ve,
    
    I tend to agree with you...as I said to someone offline, I don't
    presume in my idealism to be better than other people; I aspire to be
    better than I am now.  I think if someone raped or killed one of my
    daughters, I'd become very violent.  Sad, but realistic.
    
    peace, y'all...
    
    tim
    

    damn,,,for awhile I thought the subject was changing to selective
    breeding!!!!    %^)
    rfb

    
    well, rfb, for what it's worth, i'm usually selective when *i* breed!
    :^)  :^)  :^)    of course, my criteria for acceptable breeding
    partners may not be the same as others adn is subject to change,
    but that's a different question!  :^)
    
    					da ve

> well, rfb, for what it's worth, i'm usually selective when *i* breed!
>    :^)  :^)  :^)    of course, my criteria for acceptable breeding
>    partners may not be the same as others adn is subject to change,
>    but that's a different question!  :^)

Now are we talking about *actually* breeding, or just practicing??? :-)
Also depends on how much beer you've had, eh? :-)  Oh, sorry, this isn't
the beer note...

:-)

Dave  (who could use a few laughs from GRATEFUL)...

I just have two quick things to say in this note.  I know how I feel and I 
know that I cannot change the minds of Tim and some others of the anti-
crowd in here.

1)  The 2nd amendment is the amendment that actually guarentees all the 
rest of them.  Without it, the rest is all just a piece of paper.  As is 
being shown right this minute in Russia/USSR/whatever-the-hell-they-are-
this-hour.

2) In Maryland there have been a few stranglings recently.  the governor of 
MD has submitted a bill that would outlaw the purchace of rope or cord by 
persons under the age of 21.  If this passes will the stranglings stop?

Geoff

    No rope or cord in Md is a little contradictory to their reputation. 
    
    Annapolis is THE sailing center on the east coast. Line, rope, cordage
    is a pretty important item an junior sailors are going to need to buy
    it. 
    
    	I am making no statement on gun control.
    A different Geoff

I'm not sure that Benjamin Franklin would consider handgun ownership to be
an essential liberty if he were alive in the 1990's.

Jim

    
    RE:106
    >I'm not sure that Benjamin Franklin would consider handgun ownership
    to be an essential liberty if he were alive in the 1990's.
    
     WHY NOT? Seems today its more essential to own a handgun then 200+
    years ago!
    
    Divide Dave
    

Agreed...

He'd probably consider it essential.  :-/


- jeff

    
    	i dunno...  i've managed this far without one...
    
    	i agree it's a dangerous world out there, but i don't think it
    necessarily justifies the need for a handgun...   seems to me you're
    more likely to get in a dangerous car accident than getting gunned
    down in a shoot out...
    
    	i DO support the right of people to kep and bear arms...  but i
    also think that registration and background checks and tough
    procurement criteria aren't going to hurt us any either...
    
    	i feel a hell of a lot safer with some one who sez they have a
    weapon for sport shooting than i do with someone who carries for self
    defense/protection...  methinks we the people are getting a bit
    paranoid...  if someone's going to plug you, i doubt that they're going
    to give you an opportunity to get your weapon out to defend yourself...
    in a chance encounter with some gun toting criminal, you're dead
    meat most likely...  he's already got the drop on you, you're dead... 
    this ain't no quick draw gunfight at the ok corral...  and in a
    situation where you have time to retrieve your gun from it's hiding
    place, load it and then go after whoever, i suspect you also have time
    (most of the time) to find a non-violent way out as well...
    
    					da ve

RE:   <<< Note 229.109 by STRATA::DWEST "choose wisdom over intelligence..." >>>
     -< i tend to trust the sportsman more than the self-defense propone >-

    
 >>   	i DO support the right of people to kep and bear arms...  but i
 >>   also think that registration and background checks and tough
 >>   procurement criteria aren't going to hurt us any either...
    
  The problem with Gun registration is that it's the first step towards 
 confiscation. Ya need to know who's got em to take em away.

  And to be very blunt You really have to be extremly stupid to think 
 criminals will register thier guns. As for background checks that's done
 when you apply for a license why should it be done at purchase. And once
 again this only hinders Law Abiding Gun Owners (LAGO's) not criminals

 Sarcasm on...

   ..an alley in boston. "Hey man I hear you deal in guns."
   Illegal dealer says "Well ya but I need to get a background check
   and you'll need to wait five days."

  ...Sarcasm off
   

  As for the waiting periods stopping crimes of passion Sarah Brady herself 
 said it wouldn't solve that issue at all.


  The Biggest fear criminals have is that thier victim is armed. (and inmates 
  have been polled) The majority of who dealt in B&E said that if they even
  suspect a home owner was armed they would pass that house by.


  All the current bills on Gun control is aimed at LAGO's not criminals.

 Proposals for increased taxes on firearms, ammunition, etc...

  The message every LAGO should be sending to the Politicians is

  "IT'S THE CRIMINALS, STUPID!!!"


 Shawn

Quick comment:  

This is slowly becoming a hiot button with me -- why are we (as a society)
condoning more and more "crimes of passion"????  Lack of mental/physical
restraint should not be reason to excuse someone from a violent crime, IMO.

Self-defense, okay, but allowing people the liberty to claim - "well they were
beating me up over the course of the last five years, and I was scared to go to
the police, so I planned it out very carefully and killed him/chopped of his
you-know-what"  -- now-a-days this type fo activity is considered a crime of
passion??? That's bull, if the crime occured during an assualt, then that's
self defense, if the crime occured hours, days, weeks after the assault(s), then
that is subverting proper legal channels and excersizing Lack of restraint by
taking matters into your own hands (pun?).

now back to our regularly schedule handgun/helmet law debates....
 
Glennnn_who still thinks it's pretty cool what she did, although I also think
	it's highly illegal and she should have gone to jail.

The right to keep and bear arms was not put into the constitution so that 
people could shoot Bambi.  It also, for the most part, was not put on the 
books so that you could protect yourself from lone muggers (there weren't a 
hell of a lot of them in 1791.  The main reason that the Right to keep and 
bear arms was placed in the second position in the Bill of rights was to 
provide the people with the ability to resist an oppressive, tyrannical 
government (couldn't happen Mr Randall Weaver; would never happen in the 
U.S. Mr. Koresh; nah, our government could never do something like that, Mr. 
??? at the airport with a few thousand dollars who is going to a car show). 
The reason it was placed second is that one should try using the freedom of 
speech and the press prior to using other means (this is my own personal 
view).

Back in the 1970's when the U.S. was entrenched in the Vietnam police 
action, the Honorable Richard M. Nixon wanted to declare martial law to 
curtail the protests against the war.  He was tolds by his intelligence 
agencies (CIA, FBI, NSI, and others) that he couldn't do that.  Not because 
it was wrong or against the law but because the citizens were too well 
armed and woud not stand for it.  it was at this time the HandGun Control 
Inc was formed, however it was not called HCI at the time.  Their agenda, 
then and now, is to disarm the populace.

you can call me paranoid and maybe I am, but there was a person of some 
repute, whose name I can't remember, who stated that "paranoia is just having
all the facts".  I still say, and I know that there are lots of people in 
this file that disagree with me, that the 2nd amendment is the amendment 
that protects all the others and gives the Bill of Rights it "teeth"

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a person prone to violence.  
However I am prone to protecting my freedoms and debunking the myth that 
bigger government is better government.

Geoff

    
    Re:113
    
     Well said Geoff!!!
    
     re:109
     
     da ve
    
     If someone is going to plu me i would like the CNANCE to defend myself
    rather than being totaly unarmed!
    
     The people should be paranoid! With the last group in office the DEA
    was running over peoples rigths, with the current adminastration we
    have the BATF running loose.
    
     Whats a poor boy to do?
    
    Divide Dave
    
    

  Right on, Geoff!!!


 To add to that...

   "Gun control" has never been about controlling criminals, or even
  controlling guns. Whether at Federal,State, or local level, gun control
  is about PEOPLE CONTROL. It's about the civil liberties goverment would 
  seize from all of us at gun ban activist behest.

  Paul Craig Roberts (syndicated columnist) wrote,

  "Gun control is part of the goverment's plan to stamp out individual 
   responsibility. A people deemed incapable of self-defense are also
   incapable of self-goverment. If we can be restricted from defending 
   ourselves, we can be restricted from providing our own food, housing,
   education, health care and moral codes. It will be up to the elite
   to decide what to do with us."


 RE: Glenn

  I been saying that to my wife for years now. IMO if you have time to plot
 a death you've committed pre-meditated murder. That doesn't justify the
 abuse but it's still murder.



 Shawn

    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    I am NOT going to talk about gun control any more.
    
    :-)
    
    Well, ok, just a little.
    
    Just like a child that grows up to a mature adult, society matures over
    the course of hundreds, or perhaps thousands of years.  In an ideal,
    mature society, guns are an anathema - totally unnecessary. 
    Unfortunately, however, the human race appears to be stuck in
    mid-adolescence, and probably isn't ready to give up its toys yet.
    Just as unfortunate is the probability that none of us will live long
    enough to see the human race grow up.
    
    Personally, the argument that sounds like "If guns are outlawed, only
    outlaws will have guns" is a trite, chicken-or-egg slogan that makes
    about as much sense as "Support your right to arm bears".  The same
    people who argue for better enforcement of existing statutes will turn
    around and argue that tighter restrictions won't be enforceable.  When it is
    the very lack of restrictions NOW that makes violent crime so
    difficult to enforce.  Tighter controls will make it law enforcement
    easier, not harder...that's the whole idea.
    
    By the way, I too was troubled by the questionable authenticity of the
    article, and upon reading it, found no mention of controlling blades
    and garden implements, the introductory paragraph notwithstanding. 
    
    tim
    

    
    TIM...
    
     I have to disagree with you the problem today is not
    " When it is the very lack of restrictions NOW that makes violent crime so
        difficult to enforce."
    
     We have enough restriction in place today to deal with the problem of 
    violent offenders, the problem is that they are not being dealt with
    by the "justice system"
    
     It's a fact that 80% of violent crime is committed by 7% of criminals.
     Deal with them and that will stop violent acts, along with this is the
    need for jobs for a large group of needy persons.
    
     Divide Dave
     

    
    keep in mind, that one of the first things i put in my note was that i
    DO support the right of the people to keep and bear arms... so, please,
    don't misunderstand...  i am not trying to take your guns away...  i do
    not support disarmament of the populace...  i do support addtional
    controls and restrictions on trade in lethal weapons...
    
    as for registration being the first step towards confiscation, sorry..
    don't see it...  yes, a registration list would give authorities
    a place to start looking *IF* they were going to confiscate all the
    weapons, but, let's put a little rationality to that little bit of
    paranoia...  if you would have me beileve that fear of an armed populace
    can keep the government from imposing martial law, do you really expect
    me to believe that this same armed populace is going to let the
    goverment take those guns away????  sorry...  that dog don't hunt...
    
    registration, in my tiny little mind, allows authorities to trace a
    weapons history...  your gun is stolen and someone is found in posesion
    of it???  lock 'em up for posession of your stolen property...  make
    stiff sentences for someone in posession of a stolen weapon (the
    assumption being that there is no legitimate reason-unless the guin
    were "found" and tunred in- for them to be in posession of a stolen
    firearm)...  violent criminals?  lock 'em, up...  posession of an
    unregistered gun???  lock 'em up...  posession of stolen guns???  lock
    'em up...  return the weapon to it's rightful owner...
    
    to me, arguing against registration on the grounds that "if the govt
    knows i have this they might come and take it away" is pure paranoia...
    
    as for having the chance to defend yourself, well, sure...  i support
    that...  i didn't say anything about denying you that right...  i only
    said that i would feel less commfortable around someone who felt that
    they were in such constant danger that they needed to cary weapons all
    the time...  lets be real here...  would you feel better about hanigng
    out in some bar having a beer with me if i had guns at home for sport
    or if i had one in a shoulder holster on my person cuz "you never know
    when you might need it"????
    
    as for the background checks imposing hardship on legal gun owners...
    i don't se that either...  (and lets not start on the brady law...  i
    never mentioned it once)  i dont intend to stop crimes of passion...
    i only want to see EVERYBODY have a harrder time getting guns...
    please explain to me the kind of situation that would involve you going
    to a gun store to buy a weapon when you couldn't wait two or three days
    to confirm your status under the law??   just cuz i pas some written
    test today and get a card that says i can carry, doesn't mena in five
    years i still qualify...  if 2 years from now i am convicted of a
    crime, or somehow my right to carry is limited but i still have that
    card, do you still want me to be able to get a weapon on demand???
    how many people really go into a store and say "i need that weapon
    there on the shelf AND I NEED IT RIGHT NOW!"  if you are going to spend 
    money on a lethal weapon, you are probably going to think about the
    purchase ahead of time and PLAN on it...  plan on waiting a couple of
    days too while i make sure i know you are legally entitled to have a
    gun...  where's the great hardship on legal owners??? i just don't see
    it...  
    
    as for WACO and the other stuff about the govt intervening...  i never
    said the govt doesn't do stoopid things or is infallible... that stuff
    happens all the time...  i don't see how something like this would
    change things one way or another...
    
    i believe that
    	-you shoudl have the right to keep and bear arms
    	-fireamrs shoudl be registered and the owner shoudl be held 
    	 responsible for ALL ACTS committed with that weapon (unless it
    	 is reported stolen)
    	-anyone in posession of stolen or unregistered weapons shoudl face
    	 charges and if found to felons, lock em up...
    	-anyone commiting crimes with handguns shoudl face stiff, long term
    	 sentences...
    
    keep your guns...  hell, buy more!  but lets put as much control as
    possible on lethal weapons and make owners responsible to keep legal
    weapons legal and ensure proper use... 
    
    						da ve

  Chris,

   Thanks for getting control back. (no pun intended :-)
   
 But my two notes thou off topic did have quotes in them 8-) (well sort of ;-)




 RE:  <<< Note 210.161 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Short arms, and deep pockets..." >>>
         -< When chickens are outlawed, only outlaws will be chicken >-

   I usually don't get involved in threads involving politics but this
  topic is really important to me, mainly because I shoot sporting 
 (skeet, trap, etc) And every bill in congress today on this issue
 will either take away the firearms i use or increase taxes to the
 point where i won't be able to afford it.

  
  First off, Tim Please don't take this as a flame cause it's not.
 Much of what you've said is said by many. this is a rebuttal I give to
 all that say these things. 
  
    
  >>  Just like a child that grows up to a mature adult, society matures over
  >>  the course of hundreds, or perhaps thousands of years.  In an ideal,
   
  The key word here is IDEAL, which it isn't. never will be.
  Also does it mean that to own a firearm is immature? I don't thinks so.
  
  

 Violence did not come into exsistence when gun did. there has always been
 violent people there always will be. Even if every firearm in the world
 was destroyed that would not stop violence.



 >>    mid-adolescence, and probably isn't ready to give up its toys yet.
 
    Ya, in way guns are toys, at least to Law abiding citizens who use
   them every day as recreation. 
    
 >>   Personally, the argument that sounds like "If guns are outlawed, only
 >>   outlaws will have guns" is a trite, chicken-or-egg slogan that makes
 
  I heard this so many times, if only i had a nickel....

    Look at what is happening, is the GOV trying to eliminate guns from
   exisistence? NO they are only trying to take them away from civilians
  law abdiding civlians. The police will still have them, FBI, DEA, BATF etc.

   so if they are still available violent criminals will find a way to get
  them. The other "slogan" anti-gunners attack is 

  "Guns don't kill people people kill people"

   Which is entirly true. You need a finger to pull a trigger. You need a 
  person to point the gun. Which leads to intent. I have no intent nor a desire
  to kill anyone (including a criminal), but if need be I would. ( I would
  probably use my bow, and not a firearm) 

 >>   people who argue for better enforcement of existing statutes will turn
 >>   around and argue that tighter restrictions won't be enforceable.  When it is
 >>   the very lack of restrictions NOW that makes violent crime so
 >>   difficult to enforce.  Tighter controls will make it law enforcement
 >>   easier, not harder...that's the whole idea.
   
   NY city has some of the toughest restrictions in the Country, yet has
  the highest violent crime rate as well. What make law enforcement so
  difficult is not "loose" restrictions it the criminal justice system
  that release the criminals that the police have rounded up \
 (many times more than once.)  

  U.S. Senator Patty Murphy is proposing a "sin Tax". She thinks it
 time for the "sinners" (Law-abiding gun owners) to pay for the ACTIONS
 of violent criminals.

 Hillary Clinton approves the idea saying "I just don't know what else we're
  going to do about it."

  Well instead of imposing a tax on the law-abiding folks impose more
 prison time on repeat offenders released early to rop, rape, murder and
 maim.

   Jim Baker has spent more time in prison than most if not all murderers 
  rapist, and child molestors.

   As for Gun registration, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) president
  said he opposes it. the South Carolina FOP president
  stated that law enforcement officers are adamantly oppossed to registration.

  And closer to home, Boston Police patrolmen's Ass'n Vice president
 pointed out that "people who would legitimately purchase a handgun
 and get a license are not the ones we are worried about."


   Once again. the problem is the CRIMINALS. I for one am tired of be
 blamed for violence in this world just because I own firearms. 


  Shawn

   now i'll try to shut-up.

    
    da ve
    
     What it appears to me that your saying is take away the right to keep
    and bear arms, and make it a privilege granted by the government.
     The government can take a privilege at any time it wants.
     Why not register criminals?
     In Mas they alredy have laws like you propose, but they usually plea
    bargin the charge away.
    
     As for not knowning when you may need it, ask the lady in Texas you
    left her legally owned gun in her car when the nut when in and just
    started shooting people, if I had been there I would have felt better
    if she had been shooting back at the A%$%ole. Maybe her parnets would
    still be alive today.
    
    Divide Dave
     

da ve,

Instead of registering firearms\owners why don't we put in place the 
instant background check that has been proposed by the NRA.  

I do believe that people convicted of violent crimes (whether it be with 
a gun or a baseball bat or a wet noodle should be locked up for a long time).  
If criminals were kept in jail than the town of Paxton would still have a good 
police chief.  One of the persons accused of his murder was supposed to be 
in jail for 10 - 15 years, he was on the street within 5 months.

Registering law-abiding citizens is not the answer and will not solve the 
problem.

More later, gotta run.

Geoff

>    One of the persons accused of his murder was supposed to be 
>in jail for 10 - 15 years, he was on the street within 5 months.

	not that it makes much difference, but I think he was serving 7 -
	10 and got out after something like 15 months.
	
	Jay

Instant background checks are a great idea, but even they aren't going to 
solve everything.  Consider the case of Wayne Lo at Simon's Rock College.
(Life without parole, thank god).  From what I remember, no prior convictions,
no psychiatric problems, but he was certainly nuts, and he went and
brought a gun legally, and just started shooting people.  He bypassed
a waiting period, because he was from a state that didn't have one,
and Mass laws apply the laws of the state one is resident in, rather than
applying its waiting period universally.  But then again, I tend to doubt
that even a waiting period would have stopped him.  It just would have 
been another random bunch of people he would have shot.  I don't have
an answer for this, I'm not sure there is one.  Criminals will certainly
buy things illegaly, apparently sane people with no criminal records
will go off their nut and use legally purchased guns for criminal purposes.
Sigh....

Let's educate our children with love and try to teach them to respect
others, while at the same time keeping an eye out for the crazies.
It's not a simple thing to deal with.

PeterT

  

   Da ve,

   I understand that your not in support of taking away our firearms,

   But...
  
   I disagree, registration is the first step towards confiscation, and not
  just paranoia. Without it you can't enforce Bans (which won't effect 
  criminals, they could  care less about bans or registration. 

   First they register all guns then bans guns which makes possesion illegal
  which would allow them by law to take them away, if you refuse your now a 
  criminal. 

   Believe it or not they want to ban more than just "assualt" weapons,
  which by the way is not the gun of choice for violent criminals, I don't
  have the specific bill numbers at hand but they are out there in crongress.

   And if HCI has it's way every gun I own would be illegal.  

    
 Mass already has registration it doesn't work. If your firearm is stolen
 report it. As the owner you have the serial number and description.

 The Gov has no reason to know what I own until it's stolen. If you are 
 unlisenced and in possesion of a firearm. lock em up. Mass has this
 in the law books. Not one person arrest has served time. it all points back
 to the justice system.

   
 As for private sales, Don't allow it. Make law that any sale must have 
 a FFL dealer facillitate that deal.
    
  
  Scenario...

   An officer stops a person with a firearm. Checks for Lisence or FID
  then check proof of ownership, a signed receipt, or document of transfer.


    
   >> out in some bar having a beer with me if i had guns at home for sport
   >> or if i had one in a shoulder holster on my person cuz "you never know
   >> when you might need it"????
    

   I've been in both situations and felt perfectly safe in both.


 >>   as for the background checks imposing hardship on legal gun owners...
 >>   i don't se that either...  (and lets not start on the brady law...  i
 >>   never mentioned it once)  i dont intend to stop crimes of passion...
 >>   i only want to see EVERYBODY have a harrder time getting guns...
 >>   please explain to me the kind of situation that would involve you going
 >>   to a gun store to buy a weapon when you couldn't wait two or three days
 >>   to confirm your status under the law??   just cuz i pas some written
   
    Well, the lisencing process takes thirty days in some cities/towns.
    and it doesn't take 5 days to confirm my status under law. A background
    check takes five minutes at any police station. the rest of the time
    is paperwork. Not every state has lisencing but it's my feeling that every
    state should.


  >>  test today and get a card that says i can carry, doesn't mena in five
  >>  years i still qualify...  if 2 years from now i am convicted of a
       
    True, I agree. That's why states with lisencing have renewals.


>>    how many people really go into a store and say "i need that weapon
>>    there on the shelf AND I NEED IT RIGHT NOW!"  if you are going to spend 
>>    money on a lethal weapon, you are probably going to think about the
>>    purchase ahead of time and PLAN on it...  plan on waiting a couple of
>>    days too while i make sure i know you are legally entitled to have a
>>    gun...  where's the great hardship on legal owners??? i just don't see

   Not many, but that's not the point, it's the additional cost to buy a gun
 to pay for the paperwork and background check which was done when I was
 lisenced.
     
    
  >>  i believe that
  >>  	-you shoudl have the right to keep and bear arms
  >>  	-fireamrs shoudl be registered and the owner shoudl be held 
  >>  	 responsible for ALL ACTS committed with that weapon (unless it
  >>  	 is reported stolen)
  >>  	-anyone in posession of stolen or unregistered weapons shoudl face
  >>  	 charges and if found to felons, lock em up...
  >>  	-anyone commiting crimes with handguns shoudl face stiff, long term
  >>  	 sentences...
  >>  
  >>  keep your guns...  hell, buy more!  but lets put as much control as
  >>  possible on lethal weapons and make owners responsible to keep legal
  >>  weapons legal and ensure proper use... 
    
     I agree with all this except for more control. I know I'm sounding like
   a Broken record but control only controls those that use legal means to 
  obtain fire arms. 

  Peace,

   Shawn

Geoff, Divide Dave, and Shawn,

You guys probably ought to sit down...;-)

I've actually changed my opinion on this subject, much of it because of
our discussions in the past (particularly Geoff and DD)  I have always
believed in the eventually abolition of all firearms - not being a sportsman
myself, I felt had no call for a weapon.  Recently, though, I've come to
see that people ought to have the right to defend themselves as they deem
appropriate.  I do, however, think it's important to keep a tight lid on
any potentially dangerous tool/device/weapon etc...the more deadly, the
tighter the lid.  Too many loonies out there to allow open access to guns.
Legitimate owners should have no problem clearing channels to buy a gun.

Some guns, however, probably needn't be available to the public - high speed
fully automatic machine guns, or bazookas for example...seriously.

I can't understand why we can have instant lottery ticket registration, based
on 15-year-old gaming technology (I used to work in that field), but we
can't set up a nation-wide, instant validation system for gun purchasers...

Like I said before, someday guns will be obsolete, but you don't get to
grow up faster by skipping adolescence and going straight to middle age,
and neither does society - we just have to wait.  For now, though, I think
we need to have a more cohesive, integrated strategy for keeping guns out
of the hands of lunatics and criminals.

;-)

tim

RE:   <<< Note 210.170 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Short arms, and deep pockets..." >>>

>>Geoff, Divide Dave, and Shawn,

>>You guys probably ought to sit down...;-)
  
   Many 8-)'s


>>Some guns, however, probably needn't be available to the public - high speed
>>fully automatic machine guns, or bazookas for example...seriously.

  These types of firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.


  Peace to all, 

   Shawn

 

I think the paranoia over the statement "registration is the first step
to confiscation" is a bit overdone!

give me a break!

how many gun owners are out there w.r.t to the # of people who would
perform the confiscation (ie: cops, army, etc)?  i'd expect many:1 !!

registration seems pretty fair to me.  we register our cahs, right?

RE:          <<< Note 210.172 by BIODTL::JC "cuz everybody's gotta go" >>>

>>I think the paranoia over the statement "registration is the first step
>>to confiscation" is a bit overdone!

>>give me a break!

>>how many gun owners are out there w.r.t to the # of people who would
>>perform the confiscation (ie: cops, army, etc)?  i'd expect many:1 !!

>>registration seems pretty fair to me.  we register our cahs, right?

 1. We license drivers and cars to pay for roads that they use, not
   to stop highway deaths. To curb highway deaths we Punish drunk drivers.
   Post speed limits and enforce them. etc, etc...

 2. Gun registration is expensive. We'll pay taxes to build another 
  bureaucracy which will inevitably show the incompetence that exisist in
  everything the goverment touches.

 3. Confiscation: One stroke of the Presidents pen could institute confiscation.
   There may be a many to 1 ratio but it would take a highly concerted effort 
   to stop it if it becomes law. Hitler was able to disarm the masses why
   couldn't our goverment do it?

  4. It trades our constitutional right into a goverment-given privilege.
    I don't remember who said it but "Life and liberty are empty without
    the means to protect it."

    Driving is a privilege, firearms ownership for lawful means is a 
   constitutional right. 
    

  Shawn

    
    
    What Shawn said
    
    
    Divide Dave
    

>   >> out in some bar having a beer with me if i had guns at home for sport
>   >> or if i had one in a shoulder holster on my person cuz "you never know
>   >> when you might need it"????
    

>   I've been in both situations and felt perfectly safe in both.

you may feel safe being around people drinking and carrying guns, but i
wouldn't

- rich

>	not that it makes much difference, but I think he was serving 7 -
>	10 and got out after something like 15 months.

and plenty of people like that are let go to make room for someone who
committed a much more "serious" crime, like drug possession

- rich

    
wow, Tim...  i'm impressed!!!  :^) :^) :^)
    
> 1. We license drivers and cars to pay for roads that they use, not
>  to stop highway deaths. To curb highway deaths we Punish drunk drivers.
>  Post speed limits and enforce them. etc, etc...

    sorry...  we DO license drivers to stop highway deaths/accidents... 
    it's not just about paying or the roads...  licensing drivers is just
    like licensing gun owners...  society is acting in it's own best
    interest in trying to make sure that only people who have the
    skills/training/knowledge necessary are given access to the potentially
    very dangerous activity...  both are public safety issues...
    
> 2. Gun registration is expensive. We'll pay taxes to build another 
>  bureaucracy which will inevitably show the incompetence that exisist in
>  everything the goverment touches.

    what's your point???  car registration is also expensive...  so is
    medical treatment for injuries sustained is expensive...  LOTS of
    things are expensive...  some things are worth spending money on...
    i'm not looking to create a new bureaucracy for this...  ther's one
    already in place!  i'm just loking to have it used a little more
    effectively...  i don't need another bureacracy to show govt
    incompetence...  thre's plenty of expamples already...  :^)  let's just
    try and get the most good out of existing technology/resources...
    like Tim said, if the registration technology exists for lotteries,
    would it really be that difficult or expensive to put something similar
    in here???  
    
> 3. Confiscation: One stroke of the Presidents pen could institute confiscation.
>   There may be a many to 1 ratio but it would take a highly concerted effort 
>   to stop it if it becomes law. Hitler was able to disarm the masses why
>   couldn't our goverment do it?

    oh god...  not the "Hitler did it!" analogy...  again, if as Geoff
    pointed out, Nixon could not institute martial law because of an armed
    populace, do youy REALLY think that "one stroke of the President's pen"
    is going to make all those legally owned weapons disappear????  the
    argument is self defeating...  the president cannot rewrite the
    constitution with a stroke of his pen...  in order to ammend the
    constitution youy would have to have an act of congress AND get it
    ratified by a majority of the states...  i submit that if this unlikely
    combination of events takes place, then it is time to lay down your
    arms...
    
>  4. It trades our constitutional right into a goverment-given privilege.
>    I don't remember who said it but "Life and liberty are empty without
>    the means to protect it."

    not...  in order to remove your constituional right, the constitution
    would have to be rewritten...  rights, constitutional or otherwise,
    are not for everyone, all the time...  even the constitutional right to
    VOTE has restrictions/controls...  placing controls on firearms does
    not diminish your rights...  it *enhances* the rights of LAW ABIDING 
    citizens...
    
    i agree totally, that the BIG problem here is the justice system...
    still, you eat an elephant one bite at a time...  and i'm full now...
    reworking the entire justice system is going to have to wait for now...
    
    				:^)  da ve

    
    da ve
    
    Wrong!
    
    >  licensing drivers is just like licensing gun owners... 
    
    
     Driving is not a right! Its a privilege.
     You have given the government the power to regulate a right this takes
    away the right and makes it a privilege, plan and simple.
     The government alreay has banned certian firearms with a stroke of the
    pen i.e. so called saturday night specials, and certian firearms
    that use to be imported.
     Don't say it can't happen here because it has already started!!
    
     
    
     Tim 
     
     Glad to hear It.
     I'll make you an offer next time you out in Colorado I'll take you out
    and let you blow uo some water jugs with a black powder rifle, loads of
    fun and a GRATE social outting.
    
     Divide Dave
    

    
    	ok, ok...  we can keep going almost indefinitely...  :^)
    
    about the comparison between licensing drivers adn licensing gun
    owners...  my comment was specifically in regard to Shawn's statement
    that vehicles and operators are only licensed to pay for the roads they
    drive on...  THIS IS NOT TRUE...  gun owners and drivers are both
    licensed out of concern for PUBLIC SAFETY...  in order to be licensed,
    registered or whatever you want to call it, you have to demonstrate
    that you know what you are doing so that you will not hurt yourself or
    others...  
    
    i do not claim to equate the RIGHT to carry a gun with the PRIVILEGE
    of driving a car...  i do not see how licensing a gun owner somehow
    takes away from the right to a firearm...
    
    are you saying that government has no business restricting rights as
    granted in the constitution???  history, with regard to other rights,
    would tend to disagree...  as i mentioned before, we have the right to
    vote...  "we the people" have always had the right to vote...  but govt
    has redefined "we the people" so MANY times!!!  at first it was only 
    white males above age 35 who owned property...  then the property
    requirement was gone...  then the age limit was lowered...  then 
    males of other races were allowed to vote...   women, regardless
    of race, were not allowed to vote til this century i think!!!  the
    government has ALWAYS been in the businees of further defining our 
    RIGHTS under the law...  regulation does not make it a privilege...
    yes, some weapons are banned...  the RIGHT is intact...  you have a
    right to keep and bear arms still...  just not those arms...
    
    yes, you're right...  it CAN happen here...  with an act of congress
    that has been ratified by a majority of the states...  chances of that
    being firmly ensconced somewhere between slim and none...
    
    					da ve

da ve,

The people's republic of massachusetts has already taken our right to keep 
and bear arms an turned it into a privilege that only the "wealthy" can 
afford.  Bearing a long-arm (ie rifle/shotgun) is still fairly inexpensive/
easily obtainable (as long as your local chief of police doesn't, for ANY 
reason, object to your person).  However, to get a permit to carry a 
sidearm (ie pistol/revolver) you first need to get a permit to carry a 
handgun.  the first part of this is a $70 non-refundable application fee.  
Even after you pay your fee and fill out the 10+ pages of paperwork and get 
3 - 5 letters of recommendation the local chief of police can turn you down 
for any reason (your hair is too long, you walk with a limp, you got pulled 
over for speeding when you were 16, you were caught with a joint and the 
case was continued without a finding and officially struck from your
"file").  This doesn't seem like a right to me.  If you do not have and FID 
card or a permit to carry you are not allowed to exercise (e.g. you are 
restricted from excersising) one of your most basic rights (the right of 
self-preservation) to your fullest extent.

Another thing to remember is that it is not the policepersons duty to 
protect you, this has been proven over and over again in court.  They are a 
cleanup team, hopefully they will catch the "bad guy" but if you are dead 
that won't help you.

As I have stated previously, I have no problem with an "instant background" 
check being run when I go to purchase a firearm.  The database used for an 
instant background check would keep a list of known/convicted felons.  A 
person goes to buy a gun, their name is typed into a computer and the 
record is checked against a nation-wide database for a match, if no match 
is found then the person can walk out of the store with their new purchase 
and go home.  

I also believe that proper care, handling and maintanence of firearms 
should be taught in school as is done with sex education and drivers 
education.  The best way to reduce accidents and promote responsibility is 
through training.  Nathan, my eldest son, is only three and he already 
knows what to do if he were to find a firearm laying around (don't touch
it, go and find mommy or daddy).  by the time he is four I'm sure that he 
will know all of the rules for safe handling of a firearm.

One of my favorite "my son did" stories comes from a day when he had a 
friend over to play.  Nathan has a space gun which his friend was using, 
friend pointed the gun at Nathan and nathan piped right up and said "Ben, 
you never, NEVER, point a gun at people!"  Anyway, that is neither here nor 
there, so I guess I'm finished rambling for now.

Geoff   

>    <<< Note 210.179 by JUNCO::DWEST "choose wisdom over intelligence..." >>>
>                             -< yep, me again... >-

>   are you saying that government has no business restricting rights as
>    granted in the constitution???  history, with regard to other rights,


Our rights are not GRANTED by the constitution.  They are pointed out as 
rights inherent to humans that cannot be suppressed or taken away.  Also as 
stated in article IX (paraphrased because the BoR is on my wall at home and 
not in my cube) just because the founding fathers did not specifically 
mention a right in the constitution does not mean that it does not exist.

Geoff_whose_only_weapon_at_work_is_guaranteed_by_the_first_amendment_to_the
_constitution

It's really scarey to me that so many of you in even this (usually)
right-thinking notesfile have been so seduced by the "gun-control" crazies
that you seem willing to let perhaps our most crucial right be taken away.

The reason why our right to bear arms is so important has *nothing* to do
with hunting (the "sporting" uses of guns that Clinton assured us, in his
State of the Union address, would be preserved).  Although I'm not really
opposed to hunting, I could care less if all hunting were banned forever.
(I'd actually *rather* see natural predator/prey competition keep species'
populations in check, but that's a different story).

And the importance of the right to bear arms isn't even about being able
to protect ourselves against muggings or personal attack by common criminals
(although I do believe that each of us should have the right to own the
means for self-protection if we so choose).

No, the real importance of the right to bear arms has to do with the
de-centralization of power.  This, in fact, is exactly what the amendment
says.  It talks about maintaining local "militia".  This doesn't mean
just the organized "state militias" under control of the state governors
(although that is part of it).   It is talking about the importance of
having physical power (i.e. guns) de-centralized.  The ability to carry out
effective armed resistance must exist at the individual, family, community,
and state levels.  Concentration of all military power in the hands of the
"central authority" will sooner or later lead to enslavement.
This is what the 2nd amendment is really all about.  It springs from a 
deep distrust of central authority and a recognition that a free society
won't last long unless every "cell" of society is capable of armed defense.

When you see this, you then realize that it's not acceptable to ban "assault
rifles".  Those who favor such a ban try to convince us that the "right to
bear arms" is about hunting (and, obviously, no one needs assault rifes for
hunting).  But its not.  It's about being able to defend ourselves against
central authority gone bad.  And that, in our modern age, is going to
require more than a few shotguns.

      Craig

> Our rights are not GRANTED by the constitution.  They are pointed out as
> rights inherent to humans that cannot be suppressed or taken away.  
> ...
> Geoff_whose_only_weapon_at_work_is_guaranteed_by_the_first_amendment_to_the
> _constitution

Contradiction alert! :-)

The right to keep and bear arms is part of an amendment to the Constitution
just like the right to speak freely.  Either *CAN* be suppressed and taken
away by a successive amendment.


Guns are neither the problem nor the solution.  Education is.

Teach your children well.


- jeff_who_tried_to_stay_out_of_it...Really!_;-)

is anyone bothering to track whether or not we are experiencing a diminishing
MTBGCD* in Grateful?

- rich

* MTBGCD = Mean Time Between Gun Control Debates

    NO GOVT WILL EVER SET YOU FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    see those of ya goin in phx!!!!!!!!
    
    rfb

	I'm against any kind of control except self control.
	I'm hoping for a world which does not need armed conflict to
	settle differences, whether it's between groups of individuals or
	a government gone bad. Why does the need for humans to arm
	themselves against other humans have to exist in the first
	place? What does it lead to? I want to cry each night watching
	what's going on in Bosnia.  When will we have had enough? I don't
	want to live in a world which makes it necessary for me to arm
	myself against anything.
	
	I know, I'm living in a dream world. I wish I really was.
	
	Jay

RE:<<< Note 210.181 by SALES::GKELLER "An armed society is a polite society - RH" >>>
                    -< Rights are inaliable not GRANTED!!! >-


>>Our rights are not GRANTED by the constitution.  They are pointed out as 
>>rights inherent to humans that cannot be suppressed or taken away.  Also as 
>>stated in article IX (paraphrased because the BoR is on my wall at home and 
>>not in my cube) just because the founding fathers did not specifically 
>>mention a right in the constitution does not mean that it does not exist.

   Amendment IX (Bill of Rights):
    
       The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
     construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people.


  Shawn_who_keeps_a_copy_of_the_constitution_and_BoR_and_DEclartion_of_Ind._in
  my_daytimer.
  

>	I'm hoping for a world which does not need armed conflict to
>	settle differences, whether it's between groups of individuals or
>	a government gone bad.

ditto (no rush emulation intended)

wouldn't it be nice?

- rich

Or at least some kind of serious research into why this particular society
is so violent, and some answers as to what can be done about it.

    right now I think everyone should have a gun, so when that freaking
    Michael Bolton song "I told you I Love you, but I lied" comes on the
    radio you will have the power to blow the freaking radio away !
    
    
    
    
    	sorry, I had to get that out of my system....my tape deck don't
    work and all I can get for a radio staion is WSRS, soft rock ! 
    
    thanks
    Chris

Re: 210.190:

>   	sorry, I had to get that out of my system....my tape deck don't
>   work and all I can get for a radio staion is WSRS, soft rock ! 
 
Oh, no...that's terrible.  You should be able to take a
mental health day for that...;-)

tim

    re.189
    
    there's no need for research, the reason is clear. 
    Parents who don't nurture their children. Period. 
    A child raised without a conscience, raised
    without REAL love, grows up to have no conscience and can show no real
    love. They deal with problems the only way they've been taught, with
    violence. A quote from a socile worker here in Colo Spgs..
    "How can you expect a child, who was kept in dirty diapers for 3 days,
    then smacked for crying because of diaper rash, and this happens all
    their childhood, to react to situations with love and a conscience?"
    There are exceptions, but the 6% who keep committing the same
    violent crimes in our society were raised, for the most part, 
    like I described. Until THAT is changed...we will all need or know
    someone who needed....... a gun....
    
    
    rfb
    
    now, THINK SHOW!!!!!!!!!

    re.192   I agree...even sociologists would say "you are a product of
    your environment"   well, children need to raised with love, respect,
    taught right from wrong, and Discipline. I personnally feel that there
    is a lack of respect on the part of many young people today (not all)
    and I feel that discipline is lacking...not only in the lenient
    sentences that are handed out by our court system, but also in the
    home.

>    re.192   I agree...even sociologists would say "you are a product of
>    your environment"   well, children need to raised with love, respect,

Not me. I'm a Gross National Product.

HA HA HA HA !!!!

:-)

In article <xa+KVg8.innsyst@delphi.com>, innsyst@delphi.com writes:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: innsyst@delphi.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Legal Theory of RKBA
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:47:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 261
Message-ID: <xa+KVg8.innsyst@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
 
There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the
"right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification
of the discussion of this issue.
 
(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not _establish_
the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution
_establish_ any "natural" rights. They _recognize_ such rights, but the
repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were
considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they
were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed
in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and
others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued
that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill
of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of
republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned
out to be a good idea.
 
(2) Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals
under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding
and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established
principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted,
which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of
interpreting the written Constitution.
 
(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and
duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to
organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that
all citizens (or at least the "able-bodied" ones - the militia) have military
and police powers, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually
in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English Common
Law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification
besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well-
defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied":
implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might
be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or
morally defective. Defense of the "state" _includes_ self-defense and defense
of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by
establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring
a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus
a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to
prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
 
(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms", nor does the
common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, when "arms" included
breech-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and
spears. The most reasonable definition would be "light infantry weapons
which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single
militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen
in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns,
full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares,
smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy
artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to
be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively
resist government tyranny, but the precise line will probably be drawn
politically rather than constitutionally. If we follow the rule that personal
rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which
was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must
be interpreted broadly.
 
(5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the states.
As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments, and as reinforced
by the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is not just a restriction on the powers
of the central government. On the other hand, the citizens of a state can
adopt a constitution that might restrict the exercise of such rights
by delegating the power to do so to the state government. However, if the
restriction of natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then
such a provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its
guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a
"republican" form of government - which such restrictions would compromise.
 
(6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and
bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but
that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the
government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as
pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to
tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional
law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government.
The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government.
No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution,
which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the
document and its amendments.
 
(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those
situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental
principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the
power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon
their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep
and bear arms - on their own property or property they control - but not on
someone else's property without their permission.
 
(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those
places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights are
"disabled" by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never be
lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights
restricted or "disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very
important. Natural rights are those which an individual brings with him
when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract
is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as
is the right of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative
is a contractual right created by a contract, such as the social contract.
The right to vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of
rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones which are also
constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally protected,
it is only proper to speak of them as being disabled, rather than lost, so
long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person, depending on
whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.
 
(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set:
the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be
established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner
than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain
age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear
arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who
have been the subject of due process, except through a proceeding in which
the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an
opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof
that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court
grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally
incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not
also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions
on such right.
 
(10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for states or
localities to regulate arms. "General police powers" are the powers to
use the means necessary and sufficient to stop someone who threatens to
commit a major crime, or to arrest someone who has done so. All citizens
have such power. They differ from regular, professional police only in that
the regular police also have "special police powers" in matters such as
minor offenses, and in that they _outrank_ civilians. Since citizens have
general police powers, they also have the right to such means as they
require to exercise such powers in situations in which they may be called
upon to do so. That includes arms.
 
(11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms
must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which
serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public,
and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable
and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private
property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her
permission. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to
bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have
a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways
or private easements, and using their own or public means of transportation.
That leaves certain grey areas in which some restriction might be imposed
without being an undue burden: certain public property where persons do not
have unrestricted access, such as auditoriums or certain parks. The area
for controversy, however, is commercial property serving the public in which
persons may need to enter in the normal course of making a living, and which
therefore confer some rights of access to the public. The rule must be that
laws must not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they
would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to exclude
persons bearing arms.
 
(12) At the very least, the law must presume that places of business that
cater to arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as
gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that therefore
it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to and from them.
 
(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against
bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express
prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a
directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such
permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function
as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not
available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the
key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also
needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit
issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done
by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the
"special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows
them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property
owner if they have a warrant.
 
(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way
to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to
recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing
them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them
into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law
enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public
could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an
occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a
significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be
granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time
basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have
other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that
now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of
the abuses of authority that police have sometimes succumbed into.
 
(15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for
restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. It does mean that militia
members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations,
but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own
unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. "Well-regulated"
pertains to regulation of how, when, where and in what manner members of
the militia are to perform their duties.
 
(16) The Union government does have the power, under the U.S. Constitution,
to regulate imports and interstate commerce in arms, but the Framers
would not agree with how the "interstate commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sect. 8)
of the Constitution has been broadly interpreted to include regulation
of manufacture, possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict
constitutional interpretation should be that the Union government has
authority only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over
actions or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they
involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once done
so. If we want the Union government to have such authority, and a good
case can be made for some such authority, then the U.S. Constitution needs
to be amended to delegate that authority to it.
 
(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms
have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that
imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are
more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep
and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior
provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except
the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may
be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax
law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees
for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional.
That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingrediants to make it.
The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other
merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the
right of a free press.
 
(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is
specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person
from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own
premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and
responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person
within the borders of a state.
 
(19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution was
adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens, including
citizens younger than the usual age of majority, any law restricting the
possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to persons under the age
of majority or any other particular age, or to minors (since persons under
the age of majority may have their disabilities of minority removed by a
court), is also unconstitutional unless the constitution explicitly
includes a disability of the right to keep and bear arms among the
disabilities of minority. The proper test for being "able-bodied" must
involve meeting certain standards that are independent of age, such as
skill, judgement, and level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be
"able-bodied" at quite a young age, and the law must recognize that
competence where it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would
have to be presumed able-bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court
to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be
constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence of citizens
below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying
which they would be required to show when answering calls for formations
of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included
among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early removal
of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the disabilties of
the right to keep and bear arms.
 
(20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires
that persons issued a carry permit by one state must have that permit
recognized in other states. This suggests a uniform standard for qualifying
persons for issuance.

    someone get me a gun....that Michael Bolton song is on again !!!!

              <<< Note 210.197 by SLOHAN::FIELDS "Strange Brew" >>>
>    someone get me a gun....that Michael Bolton song is on again !!!!

Who's Michael Bolton?
bob

	<<< Note 210.198 by SMURF::HAPGOOD "Java Java HEY!" >>>
>   Who's Michael Bolton?

Yoko Ono with male pattern baldness?

just a guess

A graduate from the Musician's College of Over-Singing ... Whitney Houston
also claims this school as her alma mater.

"an-DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WILLL ALWAYS LOVE YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU ...."

Shout it, Whitney!

Article 101634 of talk.politics.guns:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!plw
From: plw@netcom.com (Paul L. Woodside)
Subject: Editorial by Cynthia Anne Walker in local Gilroy, CA Paper
Message-ID: <plwCLIBxu.A6u@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <FINN.94Feb15101811@rom.ISI.EDU> <1994Feb17.102555.13005@houston.dolphin.com> <139962@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 05:15:29 GMT
Lines: 173

I'm uploading this for Cynthia who recently published this is (sic)the
local Gilroy, CA paper (I can't remember the name of the paper).
Anyway, it's a good read. Here goes... 


Paul

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

By: Cynthia Anne Walker - Board of Contributors 
 
 
May you live in interesting times.
              -Ancient Chinese curse
 
And aren't our times interesting?  Monthly gang shootings on our 
once quiet streets.  A high school student convicted of shooting 
a classmate due to alleged harassment.  Connie Rogers in coopera-
tion with Bass tickets offering freebies for firearms.  Weekly 
editorials on the need for stronger gun laws in our city, state, 
and nation.  All here in Gilroy, our own little microcosm of the 
Western World.
 
A little biographical data may be in order here.   Long ago, when
I was a starry-eyed,  vegetarian, card carrying member of the
American Civil Liberties Union, I fell in love with an honest 
man.  Some of his relations were hunters, and they asked me
politely to read the Second Amendment and favor them with my
opinion.
 
So I did.  And being a grammarian (as well as a vegetarian,
etc.), I noticed right away that "the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed" was the independent clause
whereas "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security
of a free State" was the dependent clause, being the explanation
for the independent clause.  Therefore, the clear meaning of the
whole was and is "People have the absolute right to own and carry
firearms (because if all able-bodied male citizens are armed and
organized, a tyranny is difficult to impose.)"
 
Heady stuff!  I had previously studied the First Amendment -
which prohibits our government from interfering with our freedoms
of speech, press, and religion - and the Fourth - which prohibits
our government from bursting into our homes and taking away what
ever and whomever it wishes without a warrant.  Now I discovered
a new constraint on the government, the teeth in the Bill of
Rights, the rattlesnake that warns "Don't Tread on Me!"
 
Researching further, I discovered that the Founding Fathers had
been prolific writers.  No modern citizen need wonder what was on
their minds when they wrote the Second Amendment; they make it
abundantly clear in their other writings.  In 1776, Thomas Jef-
ferson wrote in a model state constitution, "No free man shall be
debarred the use of arms within his own land."  In The Federal-
ist, No. 46, James Madison rather smugly congratulates his fellow
citizens on "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation"; he goes on
to speak scornfully of European governments which "are afraid to
trust the people with arms."  
 
The list goes on.  Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that
every man be armed.  Everyone who is able may have a gun."  The
now obscure George Mason said at the Virginia Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1788, "Divine providence has given to every man the
means of self defense... To disarm the people...is the best and
most effectual way to enslave them."  And the renowned George
Washington's opinion was:  "Firearms stand next in importance to
the Constitution itself.  They are the American people's liberty
teeth and independence.  To secure peace, security and happiness,
the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable.  The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference -
they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
 
More recently, a very successful politician and leader of his
people had this to say:  "The most foolish mistake we could
possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess
arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by
doing so."  That was Adolph Hitler.
 
At this point in my researches, I became aware of a puzzle.  I
considered myself a liberal, but the Democratic Party and the
liberal organizations to which I belonged were in favor of re-
stricting or prohibiting gun ownership.  How odd.  I wondered why
and proceeded to do more research.  
 
It seemed that the case against firearm possession rested on the
fact that some criminals sometimes used guns to commit crimes.
If we could eliminate guns, then criminals would not have them
any more.  Right?
 
As it turns out, wrong.  Department of Justice, Bureau of Alco-
hol, Tobacco, and Firearms statistics indicate that 93% of the 
guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the
lawful purchase and sales transactions which are the object of
gun control legislation.  Or, in the words of underworld figure
Gary Bowdatch while being questioned by a Senate subcommittee on
August 1, 1978: "Yes sir, we will always get our guns." 
 
On the other hand, there is a growing body of statistical evi-
dence refuting the twin notions that guns-r-bad and that re-
stricting or prohibiting guns would be good.  Here's a sample:
 
In Orlando, Florida, in 1966,  the police department held a
well-publicized firearms training class for 6000 women.  The
women were encouraged to keep their guns on their persons.
Incidence of rape dropped 90% in Orlando while aggravated assault
and burglary dropped by 25% and 24% respectively, making Orlando
the only city in America with a population of over 100,000 to
report a decrease in violent crime.
 
In Kennesaw, Georgia, in 1982, a law was passed requiring heads
of households to keep at least one weapon in the house.  The
residential burglary rate dropped 89% and remained low; in 1991
it was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981.
 
In Florida, since 1987, when Florida's concealed carry law was
passed, 175,000 people have acquired permits to carry concealed 
weapons on their persons. Only 17 of those people have used
their guns to commit crimes.  Meanwhile, the homicide rate in
Florida has fallen 21% since the law was passed, compared to a
concurrent 12% rise in the national homicide rate.
 
Contrariwise, the District of Columbia banned handguns in 1976.
Its homicide rate has since increased 168% to 71.9 murders per
100,000 citizens.  (Data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report,
1989.)
 
Between 1991 to 1993, Gary Kleck, a self-described liberal and a
criminologist at Florida State University, published two in-depth
studies and a book entitled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
America".  According to his studies, every year in America, people
use guns to defend themselves from criminals one million times.
In 98% of these incidents, the defender only brandishes the
weapon or fires a warning shot.  A citizen kills or wounds his
attacker in fewer than 2% of the incidents: even so, a criminal
is three times more likely to be killed by his victim than by the
police.  In contrast, guns are used by criminals only 810,000
times a year.
 
By this point in my researches, I was convinced that it was my 
civic duty to own a gun. It all fit together.  The Founding
Fathers had fought a Revolution and tried to protect their new-
found liberty.  My freedom of speech and my freedom from search
and seizure were precious to me; the Second Amendment safeguarded
those freedoms.  As a secondary benefit, criminals naturally 
attempt to avoid an armed victim, and if one picked on me by
mistake, with any luck I would be able to defend myself, my kids, 
and, indirectly, my community.
 
So I bought one.  A handgun.  A six-shooter.  To be precise,
a .357 magnum revolver.  And a terrible thing happened.  
 
Oh, nothing fatal.  My handgun has never been fired in anger.  I
haven't shot myself in the foot.  I've not committed any drive-by 
shootings, nor have  my children snitched it to revenge them-
selves on their playmates.  The many holes I've drilled with it
have been in paper targets.  
 
But the damage to my mind is considerable. In the past, when I
read an article like that of Mr. Heald, my fellow member of the
Board of Contributors,  offering to restrict or regulate or
register firearms, I could discourse dispassionately about the
Bill of Rights and homicide rates.  But now, alas!  A visceral
urge overcomes me.  My eyes roll back in my head.  My teeth
clench in a feral snarl.  Froth and slogans spew from my lips: 
"You'll take my gun over my dead body!  When guns are outlawed,
only outlaws will have guns!  Guns don't kill people; people kill
people!  Give me liberty or give me death!"
 
===============================================================

RE:<<< Note 210.201 by SALES::GKELLER "An armed society is a polite society - RH" >>>

  Geoff,

   Thanks for posting that!

 
>>In Orlando, Florida, in 1966,  the police department held a
>>well-publicized firearms training class for 6000 women.  The
>>women were encouraged to keep their guns on their persons.
>>Incidence of rape dropped 90% in Orlando while aggravated assault
>>and burglary dropped by 25% and 24% respectively, making Orlando
>>the only city in America with a population of over 100,000 to
>>report a decrease in violent crime.
 

   UNfortunately the downside to this event was that the women were not
 educated on HOME SAFETY, sadly as a result there were some tragic accidents
 involving the wee-folk. 


   There should be a very strong emphasis on home safety in any firearms
  course. Today there is that emphasis, at least at the courses I've attended.



  Shawn

Not taking sides here, but Florida, where I've spent half my life,
has both liberal gun laws (i.e. little gun control) and chronic
child/gun safety problems, including a high incidence of accidental
shootings and deaths, as well as a high instance of armed kids in
the schools...

Armed sherriff's deputies and metal detectors in the high schools are
rather common - or they were in Hillsborough (Tampa) and Palm Beach
counties, where I lived.

Of course, Orlando in 1966 was nothing but a big cowboy town anyway
(seriously - they have a big rodeo there and everything)...that was
pre-Disney (1971)...so many people already had guns.

It's been a big problem down there for years...

tim

    
	We could use a hundred thousand more like Lt. Thomas. I'm
    	sure their out there, like Leroy Pyle... Somewhere... I just
    	wish they would speak up...
    
    
    
Article: 103235
From: Leroy.Pyle@f7.n3624.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Harry Thomas Draws Line!
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 1994 10:07:16 -0500
 
 * Original to All of 1:3624/7, on <Feb 28 13:01>
 * Forwarded on <Mar 01 10:07> by Terry Buyers of 1:3624/7@fidonet.org
 
                     Fountain Square
 
                    February 27, 1994
 
 
      Welcome to the People's Republic of Cincinnati!
 
As usual, since I am speaking publicly, I must make the following
disclaimer: I am NOT speaking to you as an official spokesman or
representative of the Cincinnati Police Division.  If I don't say
that, I'm liable to have visitors waiting for me when I get back
to work.
 
For the past 21 years, I have been a member of the Cincinnati Police
Division.  On three occasions, I have sworn a solemn oath; once when
I was promoted from cadet to patrolman, once when I was promoted from
patrolman to sergeant, and yet again when I was promoted from sergeant
to lieutenant.  That oath was to support the Constitution of The
United States of America.
 
I have buried almost a dozen of my fellow police officers who died
defending that oath.  The last one died right before my eyes in the
major trauma room of University Hospital.  I signed the receipt for
his body so that he could be transported to the morgue.
 
I think about those men often, and I think about what they died for.
And that is why I become furiously angry when I see our Constitution,
the most remarkable document ever written in the course of human
existence, being used as toilet paper at every level of government.
 
The Brady Bill is now a reality.  For the first time in the history of
our country, American citizens must request the governments permission
to exercise a constitutional right. And if the government sees its way
clear to grant permission, we must wait 5 days to exercise the right.
 
But even this is not enough to please our keepers in Sodom-By-The-
Potomac.  Gun laws are not being passed quickly enough to suit our
federal law enforcement agencies, so they have formulated their own
plan to discourage gun ownership.
 
In Ruby Ridge, Idaho, Sammy Weaver, age 14, the son of Randy Weaver,
a man who had taken his family to the mountains to escape the tyranny
of a government run amok, was hunting in the forest near the Weaver
cabin with his dog.  He wasn't the only person hunting in that forest
that day.  Sammy Weaver was ambushed and fatally shot in the back by
two United States Marshals.  And lest anyone accuse the US Marshals of
not being thorough in the performance of their assigned tasks, I would
point out that they also shot the dog, also in the back.
 
Later, Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife and the mother of the Weaver
children, opened the door of the Weaver cabin to admit her husband,
who had been in a nearby shed to visit the body of his son.  Vicki
Weaver was holding her 10 month old infant daughter in her arms.
That proved to be only a slight inconvenience to FBI sniper Lon
Horiuchi, as he shot Vicki Weaver through the head.  She fell dead
to the floor, her skull exploded, still clutching her daughter in
her lifeless arms.  It would appear that it is now a capital offense
to be the son, wife, or dog of a gun owner.
 
Waco.  "Waco" is a word which, among American patriots, engenders the
same anguished feelings of outrage as the word "Alamo."   Last year,
at the NRA Convention in Nashville, my wife and I returned to our
hotel room and flipped on CNN to see the latest developments in Waco.
The Branch Davidian compound was burning.  My wife cried.  She knew
that there were many children in that compound.  She asked me why.
Why are they burning the compound?  I told her the simple truth; they
have to burn it.  Has anyone here seen and read the Waco search
warrant affidavit?  It's crap.  It didn't establish enough probable
cause to even knock on the Branch Davidians door.
 
When the FBI took over from the BATF (which some people say actually
stands for Burn All Toddlers First) they knew that they would find no
illegal weapons in the Branch Davidian compound.  They were between a
rock and hard place.  4 ATF men dead, an unknown number of Branch
Davidians dead, the FBI had only one choice: destroy the compound,
so that no one could ever prove whether illegal weapons were present
or not.
 
For hours, the FBI pumped supposedly non-lethal CS gas into the com-
pound.  Those of us in law enforcement and the military know dif-
ferently.  CS gas, in high concentrations in an enclosed area, is
lethal.  The first ones to be affected, by vomiting, convulsions,
unconsciousness and death, would be the children.  The same children
that the feds claimed they were trying to rescue from the evil cult-
ists.  The same children that local Texas authorities found to be
happy and healthy under the care of the Branch Davidians.
 
The FBI did not pump CS gas into the Branch Davidian compound to force
its occupants to come out.  They pumped that gas in to make sure the
occupants couldn't come out.  Dead gun owners, and dead gun owners
children, tell no tales.
 
The time has come for us to openly discuss something that up to this
time we have mainly whispered about.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment
is to threaten the government.  The framers of our Constitution knew
that government is a necessary evil, which, as in the case of the
British government, could easily become more evil than necessary.
The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that should that situation
again come to pass, the American people would have the capability
to reclaim their country by force of arms.
 
I believe that we are dangerously close to that day when we will have
to use the 2nd Amendment in exactly the manner that our forefathers
anticipated.  When I was a boy, my father could buy firearms through
the mail.  It was rightly believed at that time that such a transac-
tion was the business of the buyer, the gun dealer, and no one else.
I lost that right with the passage of the GCA 68.  In my lifetime, I
have been able to walk into a gun store, select a handgun, and walk
out of that store with that gun in my hand.  My children lost that
right with the passage of the Brady Bill.  I'm not giving up any
more rights.
 
I sincerely hope that a political solution to this problem is still
possible, and I will continue to work on the NRA Board of Directors
to try to find that solution.  But if that solution cannot be found,
I say this to the megalomaniacs in Washington:
 
Pass your gun laws.  I will not beg the government for a license to
continue to be a handgun owner.  I will not submit to being finger-
printed, or photographed, or interrogated like a criminal for claim-
ing my birthright as a free American.  I will not register a single
gun that I own.  I will not surrender a single gun that I own.  I will
not apply for an "arsenal" license because I own  more than 20 guns or
more than a thousand rounds of ammunition.  I will not attend manda-
tory safety training, nor will I submit to a test to prove that I'm
fit to be a gun owner.
 
And Miss Reno, I have this to say to you: if you send your jack-
booted, baby-burning bushwackers to confiscate my guns, pack them a
lunch, it will be a damned long day.  The Branch Davidians were
amateurs, I'm a professional.
 
Patrick Henry, while addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses on
March 23,1775, put these concepts into words in a manner far better
than I can ever hope to :
 
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at
   the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I
       know not what course others may take, but as for me,
 
               GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
                            ________
....public address, February 27, 1994, by Lt. Harry Thomas, Cincinnati
Police Division, member of the NRA Board of Directors, and Paul
Revere Network/Ohio SysOp...
                            --------
Harry Thomas on PRNet/Ohio BBS 513-474-9193 * 176:300/0 * 1:108/140
         The Law Enforcement Lobby  -  LEL-OPINION@tws.com
 
 
 
 * Origin: Schrodinger's Catbox(803)652-3760 PRNet/SC SURVNet
(1:3624/7)

Kind of makes you wonder when an individual who has sworn to uphold the law
taunts the Attorney General of the U.S. and states his open defiance of 
those laws.  

Jim

>                        <<< Note 210.205 by E::EVANS >>>
>
>
>Kind of makes you wonder when an individual who has sworn to uphold the law
>taunts the Attorney General of the U.S. and states his open defiance of 
>those laws.  
>
>Jim


Actually before swearing to uphold the laws you swear to uphold the 
constitution.  When these two are in conflict the constitution comes first. 
Makes one wonder about the AG (and cronies)

Geoff

> When these two are in conflict the constitution comes first.  

I agree.

Makes me wonder how long the Brady Bill will last... ...or has its
constitutionality been 'settled' already?


- jeff_clueless

>              <<< Note 210.207 by SUBPAC::MAGGARD "Integrate!" >>>
>                      -< Fight for your right to fight! >-

>Makes me wonder how long the Brady Bill will last... ...or has its
>constitutionality been 'settled' already?
>
>
>- jeff_clueless


Actually it's constitutionality has not yet been settled.  There are at 
least a couple of law enforcement heads in different cities accross the 
country who are filing or have filed law suits regarding the legality of 
the Brady law.

Geoff

>>                        <<< Note 210.205 by E::EVANS >>>
>>
>>
>>Kind of makes you wonder when an individual who has sworn to uphold the law
>>taunts the Attorney General of the U.S. and states his open defiance of 
>>those laws.  
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>Actually before swearing to uphold the laws you swear to uphold the 
>constitution.  When these two are in conflict the constitution comes first. 
>Makes one wonder about the AG (and cronies)
>
>Geoff

So if the Brady Bill is found to be constitutional, where does it put this
law enforcement officer?  Laws have been passed and upheld on the limiting
of the sale, use and posession of machine guns.  Does each officer get to
do his own interpretation of the constitution?

Jim

I have cross-posted this with the authors permission from the Firearms 
Notesfile.  As you can see, from the list below, there are those in power 
who would like to see the population completely disarmed.

Geoff


          <<< SIETTG::DISK$OPS$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 5924.24                        Brady II                            24 of 24
REFDV1::CALDERA                                     107 lines   8-MAR-1994 12:59
                              -< The Competition >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought you might like to know what Washington has in mind for
us and our guns.  I cross posted this in HUNTING, I want to let our cousins
    in that conference know that we are all in this together.  If is shoots 
    they want it banned.
    

U.S. SEN. Joseph Biden (Associated Press 11/18/93)

"[Banning guns] is an idea whose tine has come."

U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders (USA Today 11/19/93)

"Handguns are a public health issue."

U.S.Rep Major Owens (U.S. Congressional Record 11/10/93)

"My bill...establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handgund."

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Associated Press 11/18/93)

"[Banning guns] addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (Senate Hearing 1993)

"Until we ban all of them, then we might as well ban none."

U.S. Rep.Charles Schumer (NBC Nightly News 11/30/93; News Conference 12/8/93)

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!" "We're going to hammer
guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy!  We're going to beat 
guns into submission!"

U.S. Sen Bill Bradley (Associated Press 10/6/93)

"[With 25% more taxes on guns and ammunition] $600 millioncould be raised
from these purveyors of violence."

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Roirdan (NBC's Meet The Press 11/28/93)

"We should try to keep handguns in the hands of police."

Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. (press Conference 11/24/93)

"We needed the Brady Bill for a framework. Now we've got to get to work."

Hillary Clinton (New York Times 11/4/93)

"I'm personally all for [taxing guns to pay for health care coverage]."

U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Washington Post 11/4/93)

"[With a 10,000% tax] we could tax them out of existance."

U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds (CNN Crossfire 12/9/93)

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (Associated Press 12/10/93; ABC's "Good
Morning America" 12/10/93)

"Gun registration is not enough."  "I've always proposed state licensing...
with some federal standards."

 --------------------
| Will you Fold?     |
| Or Will you Fight ?|
|                    |
| 1-800-915-4NRA     |
 --------------------



Partial List of Gun Bills in the United States Congress.

S 108 bans many imported guns

HR 1421 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 1734 bans many handguns

S 639 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 3132 bans all handguns

S653 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 1501 bans all handguns

HR 3184 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

S892 bans all handguns

HR 1568 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 1571 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

S 1607 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 1706 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 3527 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns

HR 893 bans many rifles, shotguns and handguns


Copied from American Rifleman March 1994 without permission.

RE:<<< Note 210.210 by SALES::GKELLER "An armed society is a polite society - R
               -< Quotes, and bill before congress this year... >-



  I love it 8-} when will these idjits get it through thier thick heads
 that    IT'S THE CRIMINALS!!!!!



>>U.S.Rep Major Owens (U.S. Congressional Record 11/10/93)


>>"My bill...establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handgund

  If this doesn't show the capitals mind set turning towards ALL guns
 be confiscated I don't know what does.

>>U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Associated Press 11/18/93)

>>"[Banning guns] addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

   Yea, I'll feel real safe when i sit at home with the telephone as my
 only defense against someone who breaks into my home.

>>U.S. Sen Bill Bradley (Associated Press 10/6/93)

>>"[With 25% more taxes on guns and ammunition] $600 millioncould be raised
>>from these purveyors of violence."
  
  If shooting at clay targets on weekends at the gun club means I'm a purveyor
 of violence then I guess I am.




 Shawn

I thought people might be interested in reading the following.  Some may 
get upset by it, some may feel threatened by what it sais.  You may or may 
not agree with what it sais but it is definitely worth reading.  THis is 
what is going on in this country (U.S.) today and everyday.

Geoff




          <<< SIETTG::DISK$OPS$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 6110.45                        Get Real                            45 of 46
TIS::HAMBURGER "sliks'choice;Civil War/Civil Right" 194 lines  30-JUN-1994 09:16
                    -< Found on the net, thot it fit here  >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     FELLOW AMERICANS, we request your help in disseminating the
Memorandum on Arms and Freedom to our countrymen, especially
those in law enforcement and the military.  A single sheet
parchment-stock copy of this document was hand-delivered to the
offices of every Senatory, every Representative and each Supreme
Court Justice on June 8 and 9 of this year.   

     Call your Senators and Representatives to make certain they
have received and read their copy of the document.

     Document text as follows:

                      
             MEMORANDUM ON ARMS AND FREEDOM
 
It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of
this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the
United States of America.  

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go 
down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. 
The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody. A disarmed 
population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed 
population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to -- and 
dependence upon -- the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population 
will lose -- either piecemeal or in one sweeping act -- those basic 
rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes 
over two hundred years ago. 

WE WILL NOT DISARM. The right to self-protection -- the internal 
directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man -- is the most 
fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against 
the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within 
agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of 
all -- those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for 
power is relentless and never-ending. 

WE WILL NOT DISARM. Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers 
who prey upon our families and our friends. Nor in the face of police 
and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who 
would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of 
politicians of the lowest order -- those who pander to the ignorant, the 
weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the 
rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other 
Americans and then preach disarmament. 

We will not surrender our handguns.  We will not surrender our
hunting arms. And we will not surrender our firearms of military
pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor
the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of 
social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also 
in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the 
tyrannical. An ARMED CITIZENRY -- the well-regulated MILITIA of the 
Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms -- is a powerful 
deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined 
toward governmental usurpations. An armed citizenry stands as a constant 
reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights 
temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And 
should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of -- may God 
forbid it -- throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating 
regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare 
will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end. 

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of
firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings provides
an OPEN WINDOW through which a corrupt government will crawl to
steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of
firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being
directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second
Amendments, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States
of America, and to its citizens.

Now -- today -- we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the
architects of the Constitution. These are times when our
government is demanding -- in the guise of measures for the common
good -- the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans
in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep
and bear arms for our own defense.  These are times when our
government has abdicated its primary responsibility -- to provide
for the security of its citizens.  Swift and sure punishment of
outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy
of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action
has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief
and has produced greater social discord.  This discord in turn
now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up
other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of
bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.  

Legislators, justices, and law officers must bear in mind that
the foundation of their duty is to uphold the fundamental law of
the land -- the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the
unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also
disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children, and
children's children.  They must bear in mind that there are good
citizens who -- taking heed of George Washington's belief that arms
are the liberty teeth of the people -- will not passively allow
these to teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who -- taking
heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give
up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety -- will surrender not one of
their rights. 

Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are
feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant
whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to
exist on the face of this planet. The right to keep and bear arms
is the taproot of this plant.  All other rights were won at the
point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could
they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls
would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living
can so testify today.  

Now -- today -- is a critical moment in our history. Will we Americans 
passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best 
citizens? Or will we again declare: WE are the government, government 
functions at OUR behest, and it MAY NOT rescind our sacred rights? 

Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our
masters?  Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of
the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat, and
tears brought forth this great nation?  

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will
shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and
ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors
falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of
work and play?  

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and
do not understand the lessons of human history?  Or will we stand
straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?  

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era -- which has
seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of
Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America -- and believe that the
continent of North America is immune to such political disease?
Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely
listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?  

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament
equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals
criminality?  Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who
wrote in plain language: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?  

Let us make known: we will choose the latter option in every case.  

LEGISLATORS: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the
Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by
knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic -- the
right to bear arms.  

JUSTICES: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of
our right to weaponry, and uphold the letter and spirit of the
Constitution.  

LAWMEN: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and
misused. Your task is to serve and to protect -- not to oppress, to
disarm, and to make helpless your countrymen.  

To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and
sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are
not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history.
For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to
protect forever against the evil in human nature that the
Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable. For
these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take
the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. 
WE WILL NOT DISARM.

End of text
*******************************************************************

   I DELETED SOME STUFF HERE SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE POLICY ON SOLICITATION

   IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE MISSING TEXT SEND ME MAIL :-} ;-} :-}
  AMOS

************************************************************************
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you take all the guns off the street you will still have a crime problem,
whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem"
-- Jeff Cooper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your reply to me bounces, your mail program doesn't understand Reply-To:

    
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    The revolution will not be televised!!!
    
    
    
    The revolution will be live!!!
    

          <<< SIETTG::DISK$OPS$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 5889.109   Memorable Quotes (repository only - no comments)      109 of 109
VICKI::BUSTA "Live free or die"                     100 lines  19-AUG-1994 08:32
                          -< s few more good quotes >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article: 73665
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!hookup!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: an25970@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Interesting Quotes
Message-ID: <9408180510.AA21209@anon.penet.fi>
X-Anonymously-To: alt.activism@paris.ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Reply-To: an25970@anon.penet.fi
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Lines: 88
Date: 18 Aug 94 05:48:19 GMT
 
<Cross-posted collection of point/counterpoint quotes:>
 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"BANNING GUNS IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME"
  U.S. Senator Joseph Biden 11/18/93 Associated Press
 
"The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion."
  Sir Edmund Burke, 1784
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"HANDGUNS ARE A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE"
  Joycelyn Elders USA Today 11/9/93
 
"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind...Let your gun therefore
be the constant companion of your walks."
  Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"BANNING GUNS ADDRESSES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO FEEL SAFE"
  U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein AP 11/18/93
 
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"UNTIL WE CAN BAN ALL OF THEM, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL BAN NONE."
  U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum Senate Hearings 1993
 
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed one."
  Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"WE'RE HERE TO TELL THE NRA THEIR NIGHTMARE IS TRUE" "WE'RE GOING TO
HAMMER GUNS ON THE ANVIL OF RELENTLESS LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY! WE'RE GOING
TO BEAT GUNS INTO SUBMISSION!"
  U.S. Representative Charles Schumer NBC 11/30 12/8/93
 
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments
  to the Federal Constitution." Under a pseudonym "A Pennsyl-
  vanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,1789
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"MY BILL ... ESTABLISHES A 6-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR THE TURNING IN OF ALL
HANDGUNS"
  U.S. Representative Major Owens Congressional Record 11/10/93
 
"A free people ought..to be armed..."
  George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"GUN REGISTRATION IS NOT ENOUGH." "I'VE ALWAYS PROPOSED STATE LICENSING ..
WITH SOME FEDERAL STANDARDS."
  Janet Reno AP 12/10/93 ABC 12/10/93
 
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion..in
private self-defense..."
  John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government
  of the USA, 471 (1788)
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"WITH A 10,000% TAX WE COULD TAX THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE."
  U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93
 
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."
  George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"IF IT WERE UP TO ME WE'D BAN THEM ALL"
  U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds CNN Crossfire 12/9/93
 
"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
  Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the
  Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
 
[Now, who are the _real_ Americans?]
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.

Hmmm, why is it that all the quotes that support the right to bear arms are
from 2 centuries ago, when the problems that exist today were non-existant?
Assault weapons, semi-automatic guns and such were not available then,
so who's to say that our fore-fathers would necessarily support the proliferation
in the types of guns that make indiscriminate killing such an easy thing
to do?  If you want to go supplying everyone (including the government) with
single load muskets and blunderbusses instead of uzi's and semiautomatic
handguns, why, then I'm all for it!

I do not support the elimination of guns, but some guns seem a little too
death dealing to be supported as necessary for the hobbyist.

PeterT

>>I do not support the elimination of guns, but some guns seem a little too
>>death dealing to be supported as necessary for the hobbyist.


   You can not blame the weapon because of it's capabilities.   Just because
 a weapon is capable of causing harm if the intent is not there the weapon
 can not cause ANY harm. 

  It really (IMO) doesn't matter when the quotes are from the essential 
 principle involved still holds true. 

  
  Today we have "assault" weapons which didn't exist in the past.

  We also have automobiles, which were not around 2 centuries ago.

   Automobiles can be used as a weapon, such as in Stockton CA. a number
  of years ago when a man drove thru a schoolyard killing a number
  children. He did what he did because he intended to do what he did.

  Not the best analogy, but it all boils down to what you do with something.

  Look what Lorena(sp?) Bobbit did with a common kitchen knife. 8-}

   
   I own a number rifles that fall under the description of "assault" weapons
  because of the definition of some power hungry morons in Washington, that
  have no idea what firearms are. 


    Should I lose my RIGHT to keep these because some people have the *INTENT*
  to use these weapons in an unlaw manner. 

  Shawn

  ps. No flames intended just my personal feelings.

     

    
    Noone should lose their right to bear arms, however, the current
    process is not working.  There is way too much blood and guts on 
    the streets from guns.  Somehow, there will have to be a *compromise* 
    made on the parts of all Americans, if Americans would like to see the 
    gun-related deaths slow down.  Without some sort of compromise, the
    kids are gonna continue to kill eachother, without a doubt.

    Reminds me of the clip from "All In the Family" I see on TV every now &
    then.
    
    Gloria: "Did you know that 90% of all murders in this country are
    committed with hand guns?"
    
    Archie: "Would it make ya feel any better if they was pushed outta
    windows??"
    
    I honestly believe that getting rid of guns (all or just certain kinds)
    isn't the answer. Sooner or later people will find new ways to harm
    each other. It's been going on in this world since day 1 and will
    continue til the fat lady sings.

    
    i also liked the Wizard of Id strip..
    
    Sir Rodney :  Sire!  The Peasants are demanding the Right to Bear Arms!
    
    the King to a distraught looking Sir Rodney: So, rip of thier sleeves!
    
    					:^)

re: Wiz Of ID  8-)


  also The Far Side's  "Right to arm Bears"


 Shawn

where's tim grady???
:-)


re: <<< Note 210.215 by QUARRY::petert "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" >>>
                            -< here I go again.... >-

>I do not support the elimination of guns, but some guns seem a little too
>death dealing to be supported as necessary for the hobbyist.



while i don't care for guns personally, i do not support making ANY gun
illegal to own.  let me ask, how many times have you read a murder story
in the paper that mentioned the killer used an assault weapon?  probably
not many, right?  the assault weapons look scary, therefore they get the
public's attention.  the very word 'assault' gets people's attention.  they'll
use this to make those illegal, then, they'll carry it to the next step.

same w/ cig smoking.  i hate the f*g things.  but, i do NOT support making
them illegal or totally banning them from everywhere, even though i dislike
them to the extreme.

and likewise with drugs.  make them all legal, period.  too many control
freaks fill the world, and all those people and gov'ts want is MORE control
of your life.  i think it is human nature to crave and want control, but
you've go to "stand up for your rights!"

my question to you and everyone else is:  what price are you willing to
pay to have 100% freedom???  would you be willing to cash in all your
life savings to be free to do anything _as_long_as_you_didn't_hurt_anyone_else_
in_the_process?

    JC i don't understand yer question...
    
    
    If "assualt weapons" (wrong definition) were around in 1776, then yes,
    our fore-fathers would have said that all peoples should have them,
    because the 2nd is about protecting oneself from TYRANNY, not bears...
    
    rfb
    
    

	The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
	I don't know how you do that, short of banning them altogether.

	Of course, the classic NRA response is you can't keep guns
	out of the hands of criminals.  This somewhat ignores the
	problem, it seems to me.  But of course they are partly
	right.  You can make it more troublesome and expensive,
	and you can give cops another way to arrest the bad guys,
	if you think that'll help reduce firearms availability.

	I don't buy the argument that society's need to protect
	itself requires the banning of weapons.  You can use that
	argument to ban all sorts of things.  Show me that I
	don't have a right to own a weapon, as a law-abiding
	citizen.  Nope, can't do it. [I hate guns, by the way.]

	I think we should all love each other.  That oughta
	solve the problem.    :-)


	Tom
	
	

    
    as said before, banning all guns won't keep guns from criminal
    types...ever heard of the black market??
    
    unfortunately tom, we need to be taught HOW to love...strange eh?
    SOMEONE teaches us how to love...if it's not our parents, it's the
    "family" we belong too. And unfortunately, not everyone gets the
    benifit of being taught how to love. Jim Jones and David Koresh are
    prime examples of warped love teachings. 
    
    as much as I'd like too, I'd love to turn the other cheek when someone
    who knows no compassion or love wishes to harm me or mine...but i won't
    
    
    rfb

Actually, although I realize that banning or even stricter controls
on guns won't keep them out of the hands of ALL criminals, it is
a fact that ALL criminals have access to them now.

Stricter controls WILL keep guns out of the hands of more criminals
than currently have acces to them today, and hence *will* have an
effect on the violent crime rate as it pertains to firearms.

I don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding
such basic logic, but fortunately the message is gradually sinking
in.

No, it won't keep guns away from all criminals - but it will 
dramatically reduce their access to them.  Black market prices
will soar (as it did with pot), making even that limited source
too expensive for many, if not most criminals to afford.  Today
it's cheap...cheaper than a retail store, many times.  Those who
would oppose such restrictions would themselves become the 
primary source for black market guns, via theft.  I don't think
that's a very constructive attitude, personally.

Gun control does not have to be an evil infringement on people's
rights - I think that to view all gun control in such a radical
perspective makes no sense.  Some gun control *is* constructive,
and necessary, IMHO.

Independent popular opinion polls back up the fact that a very
large percentage, most of the U.S. population wants stricter controls on
firearms.  I agree.

tim

>  <<< Note 210.225 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Into the night, an angel to be..." >>>
>             -< How about a little moderation and less paranoia? >-
>
>Actually, although I realize that banning or even stricter controls
>on guns won't keep them out of the hands of ALL criminals, it is
>a fact that ALL criminals have access to them now.

You have a true statment no quailfication necessary

>Stricter controls WILL keep guns out of the hands of more criminals
>than currently have acces to them today, and hence *will* have an
>effect on the violent crime rate as it pertains to firearms.

Sorry, this is not true.  Anyone who wants a firearm can get a firearm and 
no amount of gun control will change that.  Washinton DC and New York City 
have the strictest gun control in the USA, basically, you cannot own a hand 
gun unless you very highly politically connected or VERY wealthy.  Both 
Washington and New York have the highest rate of handgun violence in the 
Country.  If the price of firearms on the black market soars then the 
criminals who want firearms will just have to break into more homes/
business and steal more to get their firearm, it will not cut back on the 
number of criminals who have firearms.  It will have a severely detrimental 
affect on law abiding peoples ability to protect themselves and the crime 
rates will skyrocket

>I don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding
>such basic logic, but fortunately the message is gradually sinking
>in.

Do you trust your government to do wahts right and best for you?  I don't, 
I would rather be responsible for myself and my family.  To provide for and 
to protect from.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not 
about duck hunting or even crime control.  It is about protecting ourselves 
from tyrannical powers both foreign and domestic. 

>No, it won't keep guns away from all criminals - but it will 
>dramatically reduce their access to them.  Black market prices
>will soar (as it did with pot), making even that limited source
>too expensive for many, if not most criminals to afford.  Today
>it's cheap...cheaper than a retail store, many times.  Those who
>would oppose such restrictions would themselves become the 
>primary source for black market guns, via theft.  I don't think
>that's a very constructive attitude, personally.

I don't think I understand this statement, or if I do it doesn't make any 
sense, or if it does it is just reiterating what was said in the first 
paragraph and I already answered it.

>Gun control does not have to be an evil infringement on people's
>rights - I think that to view all gun control in such a radical
>perspective makes no sense.  Some gun control *is* constructive,
>and necessary, IMHO.

Gun control in the manner you are speaking IS and ALWAYS will be an 
INFRINGMENT on people's rights.  The rights stated in the BoR are not given 
or granted by the document in question, they are recognized as human rights 
that cannot be taken or restricted.  The right to protect onself by any 
means is one of the most basic.  One would think that common sense would 
make this not necessary to be stated, however our forefathers knew that 
common sense was not all that common and that even the most basic of rights 
must be placed on paper so that people would never forget them.

>Independent popular opinion polls back up the fact that a very
>large percentage, most of the U.S. population wants stricter controls on
>firearms.  I agree.

Numbers can say anything, and for every "independent poll" that shows that 
a very lartge percentage of the US wants stricter controls I can show you 
"independent polls" that show just the opposite.  One example:  the 
national association of Chiefs of Police want stricter gun control.  
However most policemen in uniform or undercover say that there is no point 
to gun control and it just harms the law abiding citizen.

Geoff

re                     <<< Note 210.222 by CXDOCS::BARNES >>>

>    JC i don't understand yer question...
 
i basically asked: what would you trade to be truely free to do anything you
want as long as it isn't hurting others?

there are a few laws that many people break:

	- speed limits
	- a fair number of people smoke marajuana
	- some number of people use other drugs
	- illegal (unregistered) ownership of a gun.

say you were a person that used drugs or a gun in a totally responsible way, 
yet, if a cop caught you, you'd be in jail and/or fined.  what are you willing
to give up to have the freedom of enjoying yourself in a _responsible_ 
way?

    Maybe I still don't understand, but...
    
    I'm not willing to give up anything. The BoR and "pursuit of
    happiness" clause in the Constitution garuntee me those privs already, IMO. 
    
    rfb

re  <<< Note 210.225 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Into the night, an angel to be..." >>>
             -< How about a little moderation and less paranoia? >-

>Stricter controls WILL keep guns out of the hands of more criminals
>than currently have acces to them today, and hence *will* have an
>effect on the violent crime rate as it pertains to firearms.
>
>I don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding
>such basic logic, but fortunately the message is gradually sinking
>in.

i think this logic is flawed:  the harder you make desirable things to get,
i think the amount of crime involved in getting those things goes up.  as
handguns get harder and harder to get, people will naturally resort to more
violence to get what they want.  

and, you even make statements to support this:

>No, it won't keep guns away from all criminals - but it will 
>dramatically reduce their access to them.  Black market prices
>will soar (as it did with pot), making even that limited source
>too expensive for many, if not most criminals to afford.  

so, when guns get more expensive, those criminals will have to resort to
other means to raise money.  that might mean comin' out to littleton and
ripping you off rather than just ripping someone off locally.

    
    i think the point Tim was trying to get at is that the more you 
    limit the supply, the harder it is for the crminal to arm himself,
    the more infrequent armed crime will become...   if there are 100
    guns, then you are 100 times more likely to see violent crime
    than if there were only one...
    
    and yes, this means that only criminals will have guns...  but still,
    would you rather have 1 armed criminal or 100??  would you rather it
    be easy, or difficult for them to get the weapons in the first place?
    
    all he's saying is, the fewer guns there are, the less likely it
    becomes that they will be used in violent crimes...
    
    				da ve_who_is_decidely_undecided :^)

>      <<< Note 210.230 by LUDWIG::DWEST "riding on Blaine the Mono..." >>>
>       -< his "basic logic" or premise...  you decide right or wrong... >-
>
>    
>    and yes, this means that only criminals will have guns...  but still,
>    would you rather have 1 armed criminal or 100??  would you rather it
>    be easy, or difficult for them to get the weapons in the first place?

If the choice is that I can be armed and there are 100 armed criminals or 
we can have only 1 armed criminal but I can't defend myself against him, I 
think I would choose the 100 armed crims that I have ability to defend 
myself against.

However, this criminal BS is just that, according to all statistics, 
violent crime has been dropping for the past 12 years.  You hear more about 
it in the media these days because "they" (whoever they are) want the 
public to be scared and bow quietly as "they" stampede over our rights (all 
of them, not just the right to keep and bear arms).

How do you (all of you, not just da_ve or Tim) feel about U.S. Troops being 
run and trained in this country by U.N. Forces?  Or about the questionairre 
that askes members of the special forces branch of the armed services 
whether or not they would be willing to shoot american citizens if they 
refuse to allow confiscation of their rightfully owned property?   

Personally, I don't like it.

Geoff

>How do you (all of you, not just da_ve or Tim) feel about U.S. Troops being 
>run and trained in this country by U.N. Forces?

what does this have to do with gun control?

what is this in reference to?

why should it bother me?

- rich

>   <<< Note 210.232 by ROCK::FROMM "This space intentionally left blank." >>>
>
>
>what does this have to do with gun control?

On the surface, maybe nothing but when coupled with the other half of the 
statement that was part of this paragraph it means (at least in my eyes) 
alot.

>what is this in reference to?

Things that I've been reading in non-mainstream press, and been hearing 
about for awhile.

>why should it bother me?

U.N. Troops have no alliance what-so-ever with your average americans.  
They would be just as willing to come in and fight against us as they are 
in Serbia, Bosnia, Rawanda, Haiti, Cuba, or wherever else their commanders 
tell them to go.  The idea of the U.N. commanding U.S. troops, especially 
on U.S. soil scares the S*&t out of me.

Geoff

    
    
    ok, even though my input was not specifically requested, :^) :^) :^)
    
    about the questionnaire...  i have no problem with questionnaires...
    i am not afraid of questions whether they be written or verbal...
    i hope they ask them lots of things, and i hope the soldiers give
    them honest answers...  the first ammendment guarantees the right to
    ask questions...  it also guarantees the right to answers...  even ones
    we don't like...  :^)  ask away...  and have fun playing with the
    papers and pencils on the ol' group w bench...  talking about mother
    rapin' and father stabbin' and all kinds of cool groovy things like
    that... :^)
    
    about US troops serving under UN commanders...  no problem with that
    either...  
    
    first, in UN actions in other countries i have no problems with our
    soldiers reporting to UN commanders...  other countries have put thier
    soldiers under our command, so if we are really going to participate 
    in UN actions it's only right tht we should be willing to put our folks
    into action similarly to what we expect from other member countries...
    
    second, if the UN were to be militarily involved in the US, then that
    would mean that the US, as we know and love it, would be gone...  
    US sovereignty would be non-existent, or at the very least, there woudl
    be a raging civil war (like in your expample of Bosnia) and there would
    be no civil order...  the military and the rest of the country would be
    a shambles...  US troops would *already* be firing on US citizens...
    
    scares the shit out of me too...  but the circumstances that would have
    come about in order for such a thing to happen is what scares me more
    than the questions they're asking or putting our soldiers under UN
    control/command...
    
    					da ve

re:             <<< Note 210.231 by SALES::GKELLER "Access for all" >>>

> However, this criminal BS is just that, according to all statistics, 
> violent crime has been dropping for the past 12 years.  You hear more about
> it in the media these days because "they" (whoever they are) want the 

I don't buy this at all.   Where I grew up, Dorchester (part of Boston),
the violence has escalated *dramatically* since I was a kid.  When I was
a kid and blossoming teenager ;-), guns were unheard of.   Then when I was
about 17 someone pulled a gun during a street fracas - I was astonished, and 
scared shitless.  I left the street corner, went to college, and that was that,
for me.   What I left behind got pretty ugly - things have worsened in a huge 
way, and you can't tell me it's hype and the media.

The old street corner and the old friends have been shot numerous times,
and kids are literally killing kids for their sneakers in the old 
neighborhoods where I used to deliver newspapers in the morning.  These
things didn't happen so much when I was a kid - you might get beaten, or
stabbed, or slashed, but not shot.  

Come to think of it, the former might not kill you easily, but the latter will.
Maybe that's why it's making the news more.  

/Ken

    although we all know statistics can be found to prove anything, almost
    ALL studies have shown violent crime is on the decrease, AND! Also shown
    is that only a few are really responsible for the majority of the violent
    crimes committed. The problem, IMO, <<<----(we know what that's worth)
    is that we keep letting violent offenders out after short stints in
    prison, where they learn nothing but more violence. I've said it
    before, our entire Justice system needs house cleaning, Stop putting
    people behind bars for victimless crimes,(or at least put them in a
    differant holding facilty, which our crime bill dosen't even address) 
    start KEEPING violent offenders behind bars, drop mandantory
    sentencing, and make people listen to the grateful dead, %^)
    
    
    peace all 
    rfb
    

    Wait a sec...howcome when we talk about guns being controlled, we hear
    that violent crime has worsened in spite of rigid controls, but when we
    talk about the value of the right to bear arms, suddenly violent crime
    is on the decrease?  Something isn't right here.  Incidentally, I've
    also heard that violent crime has been on a long term decline, but why
    can't we attribute that to long term, gradual improvement in the means
    and methods to control access to firearms?  I know, lies, damn lies,
    and statistics..;-)
    
    If you'd like an analogy of what I was talking about with respect to
    gun availability and the black market, look at the market for
    marijuana.  Twenty years ago, when I was in college, the typical ounce
    of weed went for about $17-$20, $25 for the good stuff.  Today, thanks
    to rigid controls by the government, the price has skyrocketted to
    many times that amount (say, $150-$200).  An order of magnitude. 
    Use of the drug has dropped, along with availability.  It's a simple
    supply and demand model.  It doesn't matter what the commodity is, the
    same thing will happen, especially as existing illicit weapons age and fall
    into disrepair.  Limiting access to guns will increase the price,
    decrease availability, and thereby reduce the total number of illegal
    guns on the market...so that far more legitimate gun owners will be
    'packing' than criminals, who can neither afford them nor gain access
    to them.
    
    It's not that complicated.
    
    tim
    

    
    Come on Tim use that brain!!!!
    
     When the price of black market guns go up the criminal will just
    commit more crimes to get more money against more people in order to
    pay the higher price.
    
     Most violent crime is being commited in the inner city area, use the
    laws on the books to get the criminal there off the streets. Also the
    people living in those areas need a future. That means education and
    available jobs.
    
     I have a copy of an article at home that compares D.C. (not dave clark)
    with Va. Beach and shows what the differences in cops,population and
    crime are. They used these 2 areas to show gun controll does not work,
    the 2 cities are just about the same size, they are located in or near
    a state that allows guns to be owned, yet Va. Beach has fewer cops and
    much lower crime rate.
    
    Divide Dave

    re .237
    
    to continue your analogy...
    
    >Twenty years ago, when I was in college, the typical ounce
    >of weed went for about $17-$20, $25 for the good stuff.  Today, thanks
    >to rigid controls by the government, the price has skyrocketted to
    >many times that amount (say, $150-$200).  An order of magnitude. 
    >Use of the drug has dropped, along with availability.
    
    A further followon is that it no longer served as a low price point
    drug, thus was created a massive market for a replacment low unit price
    drug... crack.
    
    There is probably a lesson is this for those who believe that demand
    can be moderated by controlling price/availability.
    
    gary
    
    ('thus was created', 'those who believe'... I've been watching far too
    much bad SF)

    your argument is a good one, Tim. Unfortunately, it's us LIGITIMATE 
    gun owners that are losing our guns...not the criminals.  
    
    and you can't deny the crack analogy used later on in this discusion.
    The same thing happened in Jamaca, where smoking weed was a way of
    life. Us govt convinced the Jamacan govt to eradacate weed. The
    Jamaican culture resisted coke until smoking it came available. Now
    there's a serious rock problem there. 
    
    
    rfb

    rock problem in jamaica
    yeah rfb just listen to how rock cocaine has transformed the music that
    island is famous for...CRAP!

Actually, my pot analogy is right out of my economics text
book for the class I've been taking this summer.

The crack analogy is what would be called 'substitute
goods'.  However, if all substitute goods are covered under
the same or similar restrictions of trade (i.e. all guns
are regulated, licensed and controlled) then the same 
effect on supply and demand will apply to all guns.  
There will be no substitute goods available.  Crack is
a fairly recent phenomenon, depending on different 
enforcement methods to implement the same restrictions
of trade that were applied to pot, which is primarily
an imported product.  Crack is not, so the rules are
different.

It's very likely that guns would be easier to control
since they are a legal retail product, and there is
every reason to believe that the effect of controlling 
the market for them would be even more effective and
pervasive than the controls on illegal, imported drugs.

I think it would work.  When guns are regulated, only
legitimate gun owners could afford guns.  Criminals 
won't have the financial means to afford them, and
won't be able to commit as many crimes before being
caught, without a gun to help them.

And, there are still plenty of examples in foreign
countries where this already works.  I think it's
time to get over our national paranoid denial of the
obvious, and put tighter controls on these potentially
dangerous tools of the criminal element.

tim

    control, control, control......you are missing one of the major points, Tim.
    
    RE: "only ligitimate gun owners could afford guns..."
    Hell, I can't afford what I want now, and what I want is not a
    semi-auto or any of the guns up for banning discussion,
    so where do ya get that??
    
    and to further f*ck this conversation up, higher priced pot, grown
    under lights is the "substitute good" (not rock) as opposed to 
    "commercial grade" being the "commodity good".
    %^)   %^)    %^)
    
    
    nuff of this....rfb
    rfb
    

re:  <<< Note 210.236 by CXDOCS::BARNES >>>

That about sums it up for me!  

I take a hard stance on crime 
- we don't have to many guns, we have too many criminals. 

IMO, here's what we need -- 
Harsher sentences for violent crime and make'm do the time performing hard
labor and developing a marketable skill -- not playing football and watching TV
-- enforce and expedite the death penalty for murder 
-- castrate violent sex offenders and pedophiles 
-- make anyone over 13 yrs old weilding guns and shooting at people get
   trials as adults -- these kids aren't kids any more
-- close the borders until we get our inner cities under control

-- it all comes down to: make the punishment fit the crime 
	(murder=death, possesion=smoke'm if ya got'em)

Deputize a posse and bring em back DEAD or alive!!

Glennnn_reading_too many Louis L'amour Westerns lately

    Well, I'm not into guns..they scare me frankly, so they're not for me.
    
    I think the government has enough control over us, and we'd probably
    get another federal agency (paid for by more tax $$$) to control the
    controlling of guns...
    
    Punish the criminal, don't send them to a camp behind bars...I agree
    with Glenn, hard labor, no tv, no working out so they become bigger,and
    tougher to deal with when they get out of their sentence, of which only
    approximately 1/3 is served anyway... Castration is pretty severe, but
    maybe we need some severe punishment...not severe comments from the
    ACLU..."those poor criminals..."
    
    I also agree that the whole system needs some revamping...Not an easy
    task by any means, but this should be worked on...just a for instance,
    I was speaking with the district attorney's office last week regarding
    the trial of the *ssh*le who took my bro-in-laws life....that will be 1
    year ago on November 20...granted this guy is held without bail, but
    the DA's office tells me it probably won't come to trial until November-
    January timeframe...but we have the OJ case humming right along...there
    seems to be something wrong with our society's desire to see a
    celebrity brought to trial while the unknown folks suffer through the
    legal garbage we're enduring...at least it gives plenty of material to
    Hard Copy, American Journal and all those garbage tv shows...
    
    and the Menendez Brothers....no sentence has come out of that case..
    That is a complete travesty...because "oh, yeah we killed 'em, but we
    were abused as kids" true or not they could have walked away, and this
    whole mess (no pun intended) maybe could have been avoided
    
    When will people be held responsible for their own acts ???  When they
    are, maybe we will start to come out of this ridiculous cycle of giving
    the benefit of the doubt to the criminal.
    
    Closing the borders is against the very nature of America, "give us
    your poor" etc...but maybe we should try that too...I don't agree with
    the idea that children born in the US to illegal aliens should be
    guaranteed (and they are) health care, (such as it is) and welfare
    etc...  maybe closing the borders IS an idea whos time has come...
    
    Wes_stepping_off_the_soap_box

    
    Tim
    
     Before we control guns why don't you talk about controlling the
    people that misuse them?
    
    Some people misuse computers but we don't register them, how about
    baseball bats or knives.
    
    
     Why don't you go back and read the constitution and the founding
    fathers belief's about this being a FREE country.
    
    
    Divide Dave who gets TO emotional when some people start talking about
    restrickng other rights!
    

There's something called "inelasticity of demand" (look that up in your
economics text, Tim! :-)), that says, even if the price goes up, the demand
will remain constant (ie. will not go down).  I believe drugs and guns fall
mostly in this category.  The fact that marijunana usage has gone down is
mostly due to the heightened awareness of the harmful effects (thanks to the
media over the past 10 years).  I don't think it is primarily due to the price
increase.  I also doubt most ex-marijuana smokers have made the switch to
crack just because it's a cheap, available drug.

Increasing gun control will increase the black market price (but probably not
its availability), and that guy who wants to buy a gun to shoot someone he
doesn't like, or to commit a bank robbery, will still get that gun somehow, and
finance it through whatever means possible at the time.

We need to identify the demographic group that commits the most violent crimes,
and so something to increase their welfare so they have no need to rob and
kill.  I've always believed (and I've said it in here in the past), that *most*
people are not inherently violent and the person who kills would not kill if
there was a better alternative.  If you want a gun you're going to get it if
you know someone working the streets (and most people who commit violent crimes
work the streets pretty well, I'd say).  There are exceptions, of course, like
psychos who kill for the hell of it.  These people, if they are caught, should
be locked up for a long time if not for the rest of their lives, to keep them
off the streets.  I'm not a believer in rehabilitiation for psychos and repeat
offenders.  The "guilty by reason of insanity" plea should be abolished off the
face of the earth.  If you have an untreatable mental illness that causes you
to be violent, I'm sorry, but you should not be on the streets at all.  And if
your illness is first diagnosed after commission of a violent crime, well then
lock you up forever.

adam

    
    If we can intervene more at the points of illegal gun exchange, then 
    won't that should help reduce gun related deaths?  Especially since
    (and I certainly hope) children and criminals are not allowed to
    purchase firearms legally.....or can they????
    
                                                 
    Deane_who_will_only_ever_need_a_compound_bow_and_an_arrow

>    Before we control guns why don't you talk about controlling the
>    people that misuse them?

Controlling a retail commodity product like guns is easier, simpler, and
cheaper than controlling human behavior.  Better price/performance. I
don't oppose better enforcement, but it's just now working well enough.
I don't believe in the death penalty, because I know for a fact that the
justice system is too imperfect to ever insure that no innocent person
is ever put to death.  That risk isn't worth taking.  Castration is,
IMHO, barbaric and doesn't even deserve casual consideration in a 
civilized society.

>   Some people misuse computers but we don't register them, how about
>   baseball bats or knives.

I don't think that's a legitmate analogy.  Guns were conceived and designed
for the sole purpose of killing...target practice just doesn't justify
their existence.  That's why they should be controlled, IMHO.  Baseball
bats and knives have other useful purposes, and nowhere near the same
capacity to destroy life, much less their sole intended use.

>   Why don't you go back and read the constitution and the founding
>   fathers belief's about this being a FREE country.

Ok.  I did.  I don't believe in the unrestricted right to bear arms.  
It's an antiquated, 18th Century attitude, and I think it's outdated by
modern technology.  These were the same people that believed they
could cure a fever by bleeding the victim into shock.  Dangerous tools
ought to be controlled.  I think we only have a right to bear arms
within the reasonably conceived and enforced restrictions that protect
those of us who choose NOT to bear arms, like me.  We have no more right
to unrestricted access to guns than we do to unrestricted freedom of
speach.  All of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights have mitigating
circumstances under which the rights of the individual are contained 
by reasonable restrictions for the benefit of the general public.  There
is no reason why the right to bear arms should be any different, IMHO.

I have a right to be free from the fear that some 'legitimate' lunatic
with a gun might decide to use it on me, without having to own my own
retaliatory weapon myself.  It's called the right to the pursuit of
happiness, and I think that's a very reasonable interpretation of that
right - to be free from fear of other legitimate, albeit less stable
fellow citizens.  I've met lots of people like that - not criminals,
just loonies who are one bad day short of flipping out and doing
something stupid.  I have a right to be free from the effects of their
stupidity and/or psychotic episodes.

I don't like guns, and I don't trust people to behave reasonably and
rationally all of the time.  I would rather trust the law than the
redneck down the street.  There is no evidence to indicate that gun
control laws have a negative effect on crime rates - only some
carefully selected statistics that ignore the more glaring cases
where successful gun control has been  extremely effective, and some
carefully selected surveys that ignore the overwhelming popular opinion
in this country that more restrictive gun control laws are needed.

If you really believe in the law, then gun control laws will help, not
hinder, your freedom.

tim

>The fact that marijunana usage has gone down is
>mostly due to the heightened awareness of the harmful effects (thanks to the
>media over the past 10 years).

Well, then you are in diametric disagreement with my Economics text book.
It specifically uses marijuana as an example of the effect of decreased
supply, as a result of tighter government restrictions, on the increase in
price, demand notwithstanding. 

>Increasing gun control will increase the black market price (but probably not
>its availability),

Says who?  What makes you think that restricting access to a product
will not effect availability?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

If you limit the supply of guns through stricter controls, then there is
every reason to believe that the same thing will happen, particularly as
it applies to criminals.  Legitimate access to guns by criminals will drop,
and illegitimate access to guns via the black market will become much more
expensive due to the drop in supply.  That's pretty obvious.

Known criminals should not have access to guns at all.  Black market guns
should be expensive as hell to deter criminals, both known and new, from
being able to afford them.  Black market guns will be expensive simply
because they are so difficult to find, unlike nowadays...

Meanwhile, legitimate gun owners will continue to enjoy their right to
bear arms within the constraints of a legal system that keeps guns out
of the hands of criminals.  It's nowhere near as complex and expensive
as simply saying, "Enforce the existing laws better", and it doesn't
violate the constitution any more than other reasonable and legitimate
restrictions that are already in place regarding other elements of
the Bill of Rights.

tim

>I don't believe in the death penalty, because I know for a fact that the
>justice system is too imperfect to ever insure that no innocent person
>is ever put to death.  That risk isn't worth taking.  

We simply disagree here.  The risk of an innocent being put to death needs
to be weighed against the cost to society of life-long sentences and/or
returning murderers/rapists/pedophiles to the streets.  The risk is worth it to
me.  Especially when shown in the light of a deterrent -- I believe
many murders under the "crimes of passion" would never happen if people
had a greater chance of being put to death for those murders -- thus 
saving many more innocent lives than the imperfections in the system would
allow.  People would have a greater incentive for self-restraint.

>Castration is, IMHO, barbaric and doesn't even deserve casual consideration in
>a civilized society. 

Sexual abuse is a progressive crime.  Most people committing sexual abuse
were abused themselves and most are repeat offenders -- either after being
released or committing multiple offenses before being caught.  It's a barbaric
act that deserves barbaric punishment IMO.  Short of life sentences (which I'm
not willing to pay for) or Death penalty which (although IMO is apropos) does
not fit the crime.  Attempting to treat these barbaric acts in a "civilized"
manner is not going to break the cycle of abuse that increases multiple-folds
with almost each act of abuse. I know this is too harsh for your principles to
handle, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.. 


>   Some people misuse computers but we don't register them, how about
>   baseball bats or knives.

>I don't think that's a legitmate analogy.  Guns were conceived and designed
>for the sole purpose of killing...target practice just doesn't justify
>their existence.  

Self defense is all the justification gun supporters should need.  You'll
never eradicate all firearms from all criminals -- they can be manufactured you
know, and a 5' tall 90lb women has every right to defend herself against 
a 200lb man that breaks into her home with or without a weapon of any kind.

>It's an antiquated, 18th Century attitude, and I think it's outdated by
>modern technology.  

Again, just have to agree to disagree -- self defense is not outdated.
Tyranny of the majority is not outdated, police state control is not outdated.

>I think we only have a right to bear arms within the reasonably conceived and 
>enforced restrictions that protect those of us who choose NOT to bear arms, 

I do not believe there is such a thing -- those that choose not to bear arms
can not rely on the government to protect them.  guns will still exists,
violent criminals will still exist. 

>to unrestricted access to guns than we do to unrestricted freedom of
>speach.  All of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights have mitigating
>circumstances under which the rights of the individual are contained 
>by reasonable restrictions for the benefit of the general public.  There
>is no reason why the right to bear arms should be any different, IMHO.

You believe because you choose not to bear arms that it is a reasonable
restriction. A law-abiding citizen possessing a gun for the purpose of 
self-defense sees it as a VERY unreasonable restriction that limits
their ability to protect themselves.  The same mitigating circumstances are
used to support BOTH sides of the issue.  Your choice is not infringed upon by
the right to bear arms, someone elses choice is by eliminating their freedom 
of choice and right to protect themselves.

>I have a right to be free from the fear that some 'legitimate' lunatic
>with a gun might decide to use it on me, without having to own my own
>retaliatory weapon myself.  It's called the right to the pursuit of
>happiness, and I think that's a very reasonable interpretation of that
>right - to be free from fear of other legitimate, albeit less stable
>fellow citizens.

Change " without having to own my own retaliatory weapon myself" to 
"by having my own retaliatory weapon myself" and the arguments 
also reads well for gun supporters.


>If you really believe in the law, then gun control laws will help, not
>hinder, your freedom.

If you believe that people will abide by the law - the yes, I agree.  However,
I do not believe people will abide by this law.

Glennnn

    Glennn
    are you willing to weigh that risk with a loved one going to the
    electric chair  for a murder they did not commit?
    just my .02 
    chris

>If you limit the supply of guns through stricter controls, then there is
>every reason to believe that the same thing will happen, particularly as
>it applies to criminals.  Legitimate access to guns by criminals will drop,
>and illegitimate access to guns via the black market will become much more
>expensive due to the drop in supply.  That's pretty obvious.

I think one thing that will increase in the black market is the ability to
obtain falsified identification -- public records and documents are very easy
to obtain -- in fact there could already be several gun-toting Tim Grady's out
there ;^) --  Actually I agree, that there would be a drop in supply and
possibly some access, but I don't believe it would be enough to substatiate 
taking peoples freedom of choice to own a gun, but I guess I'm getting our
arguments confused here -- are we arguing gun "control" (i.e. free access, but
background checks, licences etc..) or banning guns???

> Known criminals should not have access to guns at all. 

This will never happen. Expensive or not - they can be manufactured or stolen.

on the lines of guns being used for self defense, what do you consider a
legitimate scenario for using a gun?

if someone stopped you on the street and demanded your money, but didn't pull
a gun on you, would you shoot him?

if someone broke into your house, would you shoot him?

or would you draw the line on shooting someone as to whether they pulled a
gun on you, or whether you thought your life was in danger?

but if you waited until that point, what would be your realistic chances of
getting and using your gun?

and how is it a reliable form of self defense unless you always have it loaded
and carry it with you all the time?

- rich

>    Glennn
>    are you willing to weigh that risk with a loved one going to the
>    electric chair  for a murder they did not commit?
>    just my .02 

Yes, when weighed against the risk that my daughter would be accidently shot in
a drive-by while in town skating or at the movies or out "cruising".  When 
weighed against the risk that someone would break into our house and murder/rape
members of my family -- Emphatically YES -  I am willing to risk that my loved
ones would not have compelling evidence against them in a murder trial.  I
don't know what the stats would be, but say 1 ina million of being falsely
accused, and 1 in a million of being convicted - a risk I'm willing to take,
but a risk just the same.  Better than the risk of a loved one being a victim
of a repeat offender.

Glennnn

>I
>don't know what the stats would be, but say 1 ina million of being falsely
>accused, and 1 in a million of being convicted - a risk I'm willing to take,
>but a risk just the same.  Better than the risk of a loved one being a victim
>of a repeat offender.

I don't know the stats either, but I'm sure we have not executed a million
criminals, and I am equally sure of the likelihood that several, if not
many innocent individuals have been put to death.  I think the odds are
much worse than 1 in a million.  Maybe 1 in 100.  That's not cool.

As for sex offenders - I've had some first hand experience in this field on
more than one front.  I doubt you would find one serious professional in
the field that would agree with you on the subject of castration (and,
by the way, you're assuming that sex offenders are men - many are women).
It's a mental illness, and should be treated as such.  Castration isn't
a realistic option - it doesn't do anything but maim the perpetrator,
and that's not enough.  It is definitely not a deterrent.

tim

    along the lines of what tim has to say even if it is 1 in a million
    it means justice has not served its purpose and that in itself is a
    crime. if there were a failsafe way of making sure a person was guilty
    then i am sure alot of the populcce now hesitant to support the death
    penalty would swing in favor of it, myself being one.....
    chris

>on the lines of guns being used for self defense, what do you consider a
>legitimate scenario for using a gun?

Life/major bodily harm threatening situation or preventing a person from 
removing themselves from such.

>if someone stopped you on the street and demanded your money, but didn't pull
>a gun on you, would you shoot him?

only if I said no and he attempts to prevents me from leaving that potentially
Life/major bodily harm threatening situation.

>if someone broke into your house, would you shoot him?

Yes, if he attempted to do anything but leave asked to do so at gun point.
Again I have no idea who this person is or what their intentions are.  They
have no place being in my home -- in my mind that is a potentially
Life/major bodily harm threatening situation to my family and myself.

>or would you draw the line on shooting someone as to whether they pulled a
>gun on you, or whether you thought your life was in danger?

I guess I answerd that.  I don't need to see another gun.  If another person
makes a move of aggression towards me when I have a gun, I am not going to let
them have the gun to use on me.  Non-aggressive retreat would be their only
option.

>and how is it a reliable form of self defense unless you always have it loaded
>and carry it with you all the time?

Our shotgun is loaded when I am out of town or away from the family for a long
time. Would be quite effective if someone attempted to break into the house.
If I had to frequent an area known for violent crimes, I probably would have a
handgun loaded and in possesion. 

Most of these arguments aren't necessarily mine, but how I would expect my wife
under similar circumstances to react to protect herself and our family. These
are arguments to protect THEIR lives.

Glennnn

  <<< Note 210.256 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Into the night, an angel to be..." >>>

>I don't know the stats either, but I'm sure we have not executed a million
>criminals, and I am equally sure of the likelihood that several, if not
>many innocent individuals have been put to death.  I think the odds are
>much worse than 1 in a million.  Maybe 1 in 100.  That's not cool.

You missed the first risk - 1 in a million of being falsely accused and THEN 
convicted.  We've put 336 to death (198 caucasions BTW) and even if 1 was 
innocent -- I still think it's more like 1 in a million that have been accused 
-- you can't just count the odds of those convicted and executed -- you have to
count from the very beginning where cases aren't even heard due to insuffucient
evidence. 

>As for sex offenders - I've had some first hand experience in this field on
>more than one front.  I doubt you would find one serious professional in
>the field that would agree with you on the subject of castration (and,
>by the way, you're assuming that sex offenders are men - many are women).
>It's a mental illness, and should be treated as such.  Castration isn't
>a realistic option - it doesn't do anything but maim the perpetrator,
>and that's not enough.  It is definitely not a deterrent.

SET SARCASM=ON HIGH

I'd love to see the stats on the number of stats on repeat offenders that
have been released as "Cured" from the "treatment" by these professionals.

SET SARCASM=OFF

For males (most are males), it prevents second offenses and reduces aggressive
behavior.  It's a mental illness that time and again has shown that treatment
does nothing to prevent the sickness from re-occuring.  I believe 
potential castration will do more to direct such an individual and potential
offenders towards self-restraint than all the (excuse the term) pansy-a$$
psycho-treatment in the world -- IMO we have to stop coddling people and
letting them get away with "being sick" -- IMO it's a bunch of CRAP -- i don't
believe it can be treated, and if I had it my way, these sex offenders would
hang too. but now I'm getting too emotional...

Glennnn

    
    to answer the question someone asked earlier, i don't believe anyone
    here is advocating BANNING guns at this point...  
    
    Geoff, apparently no one else is interested in taking up your stuff
    about the military...  too bad...  i was kind of interested to see how
    that would turn out too...  probably should have it's own note though
    (if it really even belongs in here at all?)...
    
    as an advocate for gun registration, i fail to see how registration and
    reasonable controls restricts an individuals right to protect
    him or her self...  (sure, the huge tax on weapons that some have
    proposed would, but i don't advocate the tax and am only interested
    in registration and such when i mention "controls")...  anyone care
    to enlighten me?
    
    and on the subject of self-defense...  have any of you who have used
    this argument ever had to draw a weapon in self defense?  have you 
    ever had a gun pulled on you?  have you ever been shot at?
    
    i have been threatened at knifepoint and gun point...  i have also been
    shot at (and Teddy Roosevelt had a point when he said "nothing is so
    exhilerating as to be shot at to no effect")...   i still cannot
    honestly say i feel the need to own a firearm for self defense....
    
    					da ve

Again, I can't agree.

I could understand an argument that says one in a million people who have 
been executed were innocent (not one in a million who were accused or
tried - just those who actually fried).  One in 336 is not fair, and I'm
sure it's been more than one.  That's not good enough for me, so the end
(deterrence) doesn't justify the means.  I'd guess that 1 in 100 is on
the optimistic side for the way the criminal justice system works now.

As for sexual abuse, there is a ton of recent literature on the subject
by authors like Laura Davis.  Treatment, of both the victim and the
perpetrator, is hardly 'pansy a$$' - it's real and it can be effective.
I just don't agree with treating the mentally ill as criminals any more
than I agree with treating criminals as mentally ill.  Castration doesn't
do a damn thing - the mentally ill have no concept of the repercussions of
their actions - hell, most pedophiles are so sick, they don't consciously
think they're doing anything wrong!  

tim

    adding to Tim's comments, i don't think the death penalty is 
    much of a deterrent in any "crime of passion"...  by definition,
    the perpetrator is not considering cosequences of his/her acts
    so it CANT be a deterrent...
    
    and as far as any pre-planning is concerned, the perpetrator does not
    believe they will get caught (or at least has a better than average
    chance of getting away with it) so again, death penalty as a deterrent
    doesn't mean much...
    
    as for castration, the constitution that is being so valiantly defended
    here is rather explicit when it comes to "cruel and unusual
    punishments"...  i think you'd be hard pressed to sell anyone on 
    castration being somehow less than cruel and unusual...  punishment
    fitting a crime is one thing...  punishment as sick as the crime
    is something else...
    
    					da ve

>    castration being somehow less than cruel and unusual...  punishment
>    fitting a crime is one thing...  punishment as sick as the crime
>    is something else...


Well, maybe if we were reeeealy reeealy gentle and used a lot of
anesthetic and we were reeeeealy nice about it, then it wouldn't be...

nah, never mind.  It'd never pass...;-)

tim

    
    Re:da ve
    
    I have had a gun stuck in my face many years ago, I was in the wrong
    place at the wrong time with the wrong person it turns out.
    
    I have never had to use a gun or any other weapon for self-defense
    and hope I never have to. I have read where guns are used by lawabiding
    persons over a millon times a year for self-defense and shots are fired
    in less than .1% of those.
    
    Why should I as a citizen of this country with a constitution to
    protect my right have to submit to registration of private property?
    
    As to reasonable please define it and what it will be used for....
    
    
    Gun control is hitting what you aim at!
    
    Divide Dave

WARNING: SERIOUS DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW


the argument is based on the fact that you are judging the judicial system
based on the number of people "convicted".  Our judicial system (which 
I also believe needs revamping) also acquits people -- so the chances of
an "innocent" person being executed has to include all the innocent people that
were also acquited.  Using your analogy, 1 out of every 100 people falsely
accused of murder would be executed - that doesn't make sense.

>One in 336 is not fair, and I'm sure it's been more than one.  

Just outta curiosity, how are you sure???


>As for sexual abuse, there is a ton of recent literature on the subject
>by authors like Laura Davis.  Treatment, of both the victim and the
>perpetrator, is hardly 'pansy a$$' - it's real and it can be effective.
>I just don't agree with treating the mentally ill as criminals any more
>than I agree with treating criminals as mentally ill.  Castration doesn't
>do a damn thing - the mentally ill have no concept of the repercussions of
>their actions - hell, most pedophiles are so sick, they don't consciously
>think they're doing anything wrong!  

Don't get me wrong - I think therapy for the victim is an extremely valuable
service.

WARNING: *REALLY* HARD-LINE ON SERIOUS DISCUSSION FOLLOWS 



LAST CHANCE :^)

But therapy for the criminally mentally ill is IMO useless. The criminally
mentally ill are still criminals and should be treated as such. Over and over
again we've seen that they can't be re-habbed - or appear to be re-habbed only
to commit sick and violent acts once again.  I don't want a criminally sick
mind that mutiliates or rapes or murders EVER walking the streets again. --
especially if they at one point didn't think anything was wrong with it!  (Your
really gag at this) but to me castration is a compromise alternative to the
death penalty -- it has shown that it reduces aggressive behavior and
prevents the same crime - rape of adults OR children - from occuring twice. 
The alternative to me is fry'em. (actually I support a peaceful lethal
injection). 

and quite frankly i don't care about the detterant part of this -- i don't
want murderers or sex offenders - whether criminally ill or not - EVER getting
back out on the street.  In addition, I'm also not willing to support
life-sentences for these people to get fed and live comfortably when we already
can't afford to cloth, feed, and house the law-abiding poor and homeless. 
Sure, let's feed and shleter the criminals and let our homeless die from the
elements and starvation - NOT.  You pay for the criminals -- i'd rather see my
money help the homeless - build shelters, not prisons.

It's a hard line -- but I think people saying they don't want to chance the one
in a million innocent being executed don't realize they're making a choice that
allows for second offeders to kill/rape again - what about that innocent -- I'd
be willing to bet my life that there's been a hell of a lot more innocent
people killed by convicted murders than we have executed innocents.  IMO -
choosing life-sentences over supporting the death penalty (and using that money
for the innocent in society) -- is allowing the homeless to die in order to
shelter the criminals. 

Glennnn

>    adding to Tim's comments, i don't think the death penalty is 
>    much of a deterrent in any "crime of passion"...  by definition,
>    the perpetrator is not considering cosequences of his/her acts
>    so it CANT be a deterrent...
 
The difference here is I don't believe in "crimes of passion"; only "crimes of
lack of self-restraint" in which case the perpetrator can be deterred.

and as previously stated there's a lot more to it than the deterrent factor...
 

>    punishment fitting a crime is one thing...  
>    punishment as sick as the crime something else...

IMO - no punishment comes close to being as sick as raping a little boy or girl.

Glennnn

I go and do real work for a day and look what happens:-).  There is alot of 
good discussion going on here and while not directly related to the 
Grateful Dead, it is related because what happens over the next year or so 
will affect every one of us to a great extent.  As I'm sure most of you 
have noticed there are very big changes coming, not only in the government 
and public lives but for each and every one of us on a personal level.  
Energies are getting more intense in a geometric fashion.

RE: The death penalty -- I think my viewpoint on this has been covered well 
by several others.  Thanks Glenn, RFB and the rest...

RE: da_ve and registration of firearms.  First, to echo Glennnn's
statement, why should I have to register my personal private property?  Yes 
I know I have to register my automobile also, but I'm not sure that I 
approve of that either.  Secondly, every time you create something that has 
to be registered and controlled you create a bureaucratic mess to enforce 
it and they charge you money for the priviledge of using their system which 
makes legal ownership (in this case firearms) more difficult.  In 
massachusetts you don't have to register your firearms, you do have to 
register yourself as a potential firearms owner.  Now for rifles and 
shotguns this is a fairly inexpensive fee to get your FID (Firearms 
Identification Card).  However, whether or not you get it is dependant 
completely on the whims and wiles of the of the Police Chief in your town.  
If he doesn't like the way you look or the car you drive he can deny you a 
permit.  It gets much more expensive if you want to own an LTC (License to 
carry) permit to carry a handgun, concealed or not.  In my town there is 
first a $70 non-refundable application fee and then a $20 fee for the 
permit itself.  This is extermely prohibitive to my right to keep and bear 
arms legally.  Thirdly, Firearms registration is the first step towards 
confiscation and the only real reason for it.  If the guns are registered 
then the police/national guard/BATF/SS/FBI/CIA know where to look for 
firearms.  Recall the quote I posted previously in this string about 
Adolf Hitler proclaiming that for the first time in the civilized world it 
would be safe to walk the streets (paraphrased) because all firearms were 
registered.  now I don't think Clinton is Hitler (Clinton's got blond hair) 
but there are many people in power in this country that would like to see 
the peasants (you and me) disarmed.

RE: my other string about the military and the UN and shooting american 
citizens.  I put that in mainly so that people would think about what could 
happen within our own borders.  There are alot of people (and not only 
crazy cultish nuts) talking about revolution and civil war.  This place 
is getting hot and we should all be aware of what might happen.  I don't 
feel that a civil war would be the answer (at least not yet) but there are 
many out there to whom this is becoming the most viable option very
quickly.

Ok, now I have to go back and do real work.  Hopefully I'll get a chance to 
get back in here today, but real work has been rearing its head much to 
often these days:-)

Keep you head low, your eyes open, and your powder dry.

Geoff

    so did anyone catch TV Nation last night?  i laughed so hard!!!!!
    it was "Gun Night"...  :^) :^) :^)  they went target shooting with 
    Congress critters wives...  went to a range in Arkansas to fire mortars
    and automatic weapons...  interviewed lot's of folks...  showed some
    "facts" at the end (in parentheses cuz i'm sure the NRA would dispute
    them with "facts" of thier own)...
    
    pretty interesting and very amusing...  some eloquent arguments...
    though i bet the NRA was cringing at how some of thier folks came
    off...  showed that there are pretty rabid folks on both sides
    and some pretty sane people with middle-of-the-road kind of
    attitudes...
    
    					da ve

re:      <<< Note 210.268 by STRATA::DWEST "riding on Blaine the Mono..." >>>

>    so did anyone catch TV Nation last night?  i laughed so hard!!!!!

I caught some of it - it was hilarious!   Last week was real funny too.
He interviewed ambassadors or something from Slovakia and Croatia, and
used a pizza to have them explain what was going on - you had to see it.
Twisted, yet, informative ;-)

/Ken

    
    re Geoff's question to me about registration...  
    
    well, you started my argument off for me...  there's precedent for
    registering private property parked in your driveway...  licensing and
    registration for owning and driving autombiles has been a fact of life 
    for a long time...  it's a public safety issue...  people want to make
    sure that drivers are licensed and operating safely and that there is a
    way to keep track of the automobiles should they be stolen or involved
    in criminal acts etc...  i think the majority of people would tell you
    that this is a relatively minor inconvenience in general but overall a
    pretty good idea...  
    
    i look at gun registration and licenses to carry etc in pretty much the
    same light...  it's a public safety issue...  owners should be licensed
    (yes i understand that they are) and there should be background checks
    (and i understand that there already are) and if there is a reason to
    deny a person a license, permit to carry etc, then they shouldn't get
    one...  just like if your license to operate a motor vehicle was
    revoked and you get denied at the DMV...  i like registration of guns 
    so that if they are involved in criminal acts the owner of record can
    be traced...  if your car is involved in a criminal act, the cops will
    be at your door...  your property-you are responsible to some degree...
    same with your gun...  your property, you have responsibilities...
    
    i don't subscribe to the "first step towards confiscation" argument,
    except if you are negligent in your obligations regarding your property
    it SHOULD be confiscated IMHO...  just like with your car...
    
    licensing and registration may be an incovenience, but i fail to see
    how it keeps you from protecting yourself (except for a couple of days
    while background checks are done)...  i also think it's important info
    for the police...  remember when that chief from one of the small towns
    in worcester county got killed answering a call for a b&e???  he was
    shot by a weapon stolen at the scene by the kids breaking in...  
    i bet he would have been interested in knowing that there were guns in
    the residence as he answered the call...
    
    						da ve

    "if there's a will, there's a way"   registration/licensing may not be
    the answer...
    
    last December there was a murder in Worcester at the apartment complex
    where we were living at the time...this guy had been stalking his wife
    (they were going through a divorce) her family felt he was a danger to
    their loved one, so the wife had restraining orders etc...he applied
    for a gun permit in his town (Winchendon I think) and was refused by
    the police chief...seems that the chief knew that this guy was a
    potential problem, so refused the permit
    
    well, this guy went out and bought an antique gun that did not require
    a permit/registration etc...he came to our complex where his wife was
    living on the day their divorce became final, waited for her to come
    home from work, and when she got home, he shot her 5 times, I recall...
    
    So, if ya want 'em you can get 'em

"Mr. Saturday Night Special, got a barrel that's blue and cold...
 Ain't good for nuthin', but put a man six feet in a hole..."

    
    DA-VE
    
    
     First cars are not a right that is acknowledged in the constitution so
    that is not a good comparison!
    
     2nd where do you put the license tag on a gun so it can be read from
    50 feet?
    
     You may not subscribe to the first step towards confiscation"
    argument, but a lot of people do, what else is it good for, unless
    someone leaves the gun at the crime it does not have any use.
    
     Also you never did explain what you consider to reasonable!
    
    
    Divide Dave
    

	well, since you asked, i'll try and elaborate a little...  be warned
	though!  my opinions are cubject to change without notice! :^)
    
	>First cars are not a right that is acknowledged in the constitution so
	>that is not a good comparison!

	i agree and disagree...  it's true that cars are not *specifically*
	mentioned in the constitution...  they were not invented for some
	150 years after the document was written!  but, since the right 
	to private property is acknowledged, i feel it is a legitimate
	comparison...  also, it came into the discussion in response to an
	earlier statement to the effect of "why should i have to register
	my own private property?"  an automobile is private property and
	as far as i know is required to be registered pretty mu h everywhere
	that people are driving...

	so, the point was, there is legal precedent, that is apparently 
	NOT contradictory to any constitutionally granted rights etc,
	for licensing and/or registration of private property where issues 
	concerning public safety and welfare are concerned...
    
	>2nd where do you put the license tag on a gun so it can be read from
	>50 feet?

	huh???  i don't think i ever advocated such a thing...  hell, idoubt
	i could read a car license plate from 50 feet away, esp if it was
	moving!  i don't see the need for gun owners to walk around with 
	a large neon sign flashing the message "back off, i'm carrying a 
	piece!"  

	>You may not subscribe to the first step towards confiscation"
	>argument, but a lot of people do, what else is it good for, unless
	>someone leaves the gun at the crime it does not have any use.

	it permits law enforcment folks to trace the weapon should it be 
	invloved in criminal acts...  helps establish accountability and
	responsibility...

	again, not to beat a dead horse, but if your car were used in a
	criminal act, you'd bet the police would be interested in the chain
	of events that led to it...  were you involved?  who had access to your 
	car?  was it stolen?  

	if you own a weapon and it's stolen, are you responsible for reporting 
	it stolen???...  if a weapon is found at a crime scene for instance,
	used in an armed robbery, and it hasn't been reported stolen, the 
	owner may bear some responsibility (possible negligence?  not taken 
	proper precautions to keep it safe and see that it was used 
	responsibly?)?  or like i mentioned before...  if you are away and your 
	house is broken into...  wouldn't it be a good thing for the police
	to know that there could be weapons in the house that might be used 
	on them as they respond to safeguard your home??  it wasn't that long
	ago that one of the small towns here lost it's police chief in just 
	such a case...  i wonder if things would have been different if he 
	knew there were weapons in the house??
    
	>Also you never did explain what you consider to reasonable!

	in part because i'm not 100% sure what i believe is reasonable... :^)

	i think some sort of firearms training school is reasonable to get 
	a license...  teaching applicable laws, safety procedures, etc...

	i think a background check is reasonable to try and keep weapons out 
	of the hands of people with criminal records, mental illnesses, 
	histories of violence,etc...

	i think a short waiting period is reasonable while background checks
	etc are done...

	i think assualt weapons should require additional licenses/permits
	over sport weapons...  seems reasonable to me anyway...

	i think losing your permission to carry for subsequent criminal
	offenses is reasonable...  i think confiscation is reasonable in cases
	of negligence (unsafe acts?) can be considered reasonable...

	i don't want to take away your guns... i don't want to tax them out of 
	existence either...  i just want to see if there's a way to let you
	have your toys and do your thing with them and safeguard the public
	interest at the same time...

					da ve

    what da ve said....right on brother!!!!

>	>2nd where do you put the license tag on a gun so it can be read from
>	>50 feet?

>	huh???  i don't think i ever advocated such a thing...  hell, idoubt
>	i could read a car license plate from 50 feet away, esp if it was
>	moving!  i don't see the need for gun owners to walk around with 
>	a large neon sign flashing the message "back off, i'm carrying a 
>	piece!"  

This is the crux of the difference to me -- how are you proposing such a thing
be enforced?   What scares me is yet another means for cops to claim "probable
cause" for illegal searches and seizure.  

"well I saw a bulge under his armpit and he was acting suspicious...."

I don't think you can enforce this without seriously impeding a person's right
to privacy -- it's not like a car that is easily identifiable and allows for
such things as tags to make them easily identified as being registered or not
without needing to infringe on a persons privacy.

It's very difficult to use a car without the proper registration -- thus, 
incentive for purchasers of second hand vehicles to keep registrations current
-- not so with guns -- there's no incentive because guns are very easy to 
use and conceal without proper registration

>	>You may not subscribe to the first step towards confiscation"
>	>argument, but a lot of people do, what else is it good for, unless
>	>someone leaves the gun at the crime it does not have any use.

>	it permits law enforcment folks to trace the weapon should it be 
>	invloved in criminal acts...  helps establish accountability and
>	responsibility...
>
>	again, not to beat a dead horse, but if your car were used in a
>	criminal act, you'd bet the police would be interested in the chain
>	of events that led to it...  were you involved?  who had access to your 
>	car?  was it stolen?  

We don't need registration for a person to call in the serial number of a
weapon that's been stolen. 

>	if you own a weapon and it's stolen, are you responsible for reporting 
>	it stolen???...  if a weapon is found at a crime scene for instance,
>	used in an armed robbery, and it hasn't been reported stolen, the 
>	owner may bear some responsibility (possible negligence?  not taken 
>	proper precautions to keep it safe and see that it was used 
>	responsibly?)?  or like i mentioned before...  if you are away and your 
>	house is broken into...  wouldn't it be a good thing for the police
>	to know that there could be weapons in the house that might be used 
>	on them as they respond to safeguard your home??  it wasn't that long
>	ago that one of the small towns here lost it's police chief in just 
>	such a case...  i wonder if things would have been different if he 
>	knew there were weapons in the house??

Police should always assume perpetrators are armed and dangerous -- should not
have been any difference. 

>	>Also you never did explain what you consider to reasonable!
>
>	in part because i'm not 100% sure what i believe is reasonable... :^)
>

I agree, in theory, that most of what you propose is reasonable -- however, I
do not believe it is practical (econimically) or enforcable without further
increasing the chances for illegal search and seizure under the guise of
the "potential" for unregistered weapons.


Glennnn

    
     Gun ownership is still acknowledged under the constitution and ther
    should be NO law to infringe on that right as long as you don't have a
    criminal record or mental illness!!!
    
     You don't have to register any other private property that can be used
    in an unsafe manner so why guns? Also I belive that the fed is not
    allowed by its own laws to register guns, this being the 1968 gun
    control law( more research needed on that point).
    
    The only way it permits tracing is if the gun is left/found at the 
    scene.
    
    I belive some should have firearms training but should not be requried
    by any federal law if its at the state level I might support it
    
    
     Background check should not be subject to any wait it should be a
    instant check.
    
    
    > i think assualt weapons should require additional licenses/permits
    >over sport weapons...  seems reasonable to me anyway...
    
     This is already done for TRUE assualt weapons! The so called assualt
    weapons that are to be baned are semi-auto weapons that have owned by
    people for almost 100 years!
     Also you and what will datetrmine what a sport weapon is, a large
    number of people use these so called assualt weapons in a sporting at
    compation shoots.
     And the criminal use of these guns only account for .08% of all
    violent crimes, more people are killed each using hands and feet as a
    weapon that these guns.
    
    >i think losing your permission to carry for subsequent criminal
    <offenses is reasonable...
    
     Again this is already the law, what gain to make it unlawful again...
    
    
    >i just want to see if there's a way to let you
    >have your toys and do your thing with them and safeguard the public
    >interest at the same time...
    
     First i do not conside a firearm a TOY and I doubt that you meant in
    that manner either.
    
     The best way to safe guard the public safty is to put the people in
    jail who misuse guns and make sure the serve there entire sentence in
    a harsh way.
    
    Divide Dave

	re Glennnn in .276

	i'm not sure i follow you inthe beginning...  i hadn't proposed 
	anything in the text you referred to, but you asked how i would 
	propose to enforce such a thing?  

	if you mean how do i intend to enforce carrying without a 
	license/permit (which seems to make sense considering your concerns
	about invading a right to privacy), let me assure you i am also
	concerned about right to privacy!  i am not suggesting randomly 
	stopping and inspecting or anything like that...  however,
	i wouldn't have issue with police checking someone's license 
	or verifying registration if they were found to be in posession 
	of a weapon, if someone were stopped for another offense (traffic 
	citation?) and discovered to be carrying a weapon...  stuff like 
	that...  something along the lines of the old seat belt thing...
	they can't stop you to see if you're wearing one, but if it's 
	discovered while pulling you over for something else, then write
	'em up...
	
>I don't think you can enforce this without seriously impeding a person's right
>to privacy -- it's not like a car that is easily identifiable and allows for
>such things as tags to make them easily identified as being registered or not
>without needing to infringe on a persons privacy.

	wouldn't registration make the weapon, and it's legitimate owner, 
	more easily identifiable??  a simple radio call and a persons
	licenses, permits, registrations etc. could be verified maybe?

>It's very difficult to use a car without the proper registration -- thus, 
>incentive for purchasers of second hand vehicles to keep registrations current
>-- not so with guns -- there's no incentive because guns are very easy to 
>use and conceal without proper registration

	it's not that tough to drive an unregistered motor vehicle...  
	it happens all the time...  you can get away with it for a while,
	certainly... but if you get caught, you get burnt...  the incentive 
	to register is avoiding steep fines, moving violations etc...  hits 
	you in the pocketbook...
	
	same "incentive" would apply with guns...  big fines for unregistered
	weapons, carrying without a permit, reomve the gun from your
	"registry" when it's sold, stolen etc to avoid any responsibility
	for anything that concerns it later...  stuff like that...

>We don't need registration for a person to call in the serial number of a
>weapon that's been stolen. 

	true...  but if someone calls in and says "my guns were stolen" then 
	the police would ALREADY have the serial numbers on file...  if the
	gun turns up at a crime scene, the police wouldn't have to look far 
	for the owner of record...  if someone is arrested and has your
	stolen gun in thier posession, it provides a pretty clear link to 
	the theft of your private property...  could aid you in regaining
	posession of your property...  it seems to me, the only argument
	AGAINST registration is the paranoid (sorry, imho) idea that
	someday the police will come take them all away...

>Police should always assume perpetrators are armed and dangerous -- should not
>have been any difference. 

	true again...  they *should*...  but forewarned is forearmed... :^)
	i believe that a cop answering a call is entitled to as much 
	information as possible...  put yourself in the cops shoes...
	sure, you'd be careful...  but wouldn't it be nice to know there
	was a greater probability of running into an armed perp?  maybe
	the cop in question *should* have been more careful...  but i'd bet
	my milk money on the fact that if he KNEW there werre guns there
	that he DEFINITELY would have been more careful...


	i share your privacy concerns, and i don't have all the answers...
	but as long as we're all sharing opinions, well,...  :^)


					da ve

re Divide Dave in .277 (? i'm losing track! :^)

    
>     Gun ownership is still acknowledged under the constitution and ther
>    should be NO law to infringe on that right as long as you don't have a
>    criminal record or mental illness!!!

	yeah, so where do we disagree???  i'm not infringing on your rights
	to have, carry, or fire a weapon...  i'm just asking you to meet
	the same criteria (no criminal record, mental illness) to be licensed,
	and to register the guns you own so that you can be held responsible 
	for thier safe use...

>     You don't have to register any other private property that can be used
>    in an unsafe manner so why guns? Also I belive that the fed is not
>    allowed by its own laws to register guns, this being the 1968 gun
>    control law( more research needed on that point).

	i have no idea about the 1968 law and would be interested in the
	results of your research...  but even if the law forbade registration,
	i would support the law being changed according to due process...

	and i think we've already determined that you DO have to register
	other private property that can be used in an unsafe manner...
    
>    The only way it permits tracing is if the gun is left/found at the 
>    scene.

	true...  so what??  it still permits the weapon to be traced
	and begs an explanation from the owner of record as to how it got 
	there...  (again, responsibility) or are you trying to say that 
	it's better if the weapon is NOT traceable??? (which i doubt)
    
>    I belive some should have firearms training but should not be requried
>    by any federal law if its at the state level I might support it

	i too, would support it at the state level...  but i also believe in 
	a uniform code of law for something like this too...  it would sure
	inhale if you were in compliance with your local laws and got busted
	on an out-of-state trip for some local reg you had no clue about...
	would it not be better if the same rules applied to all of us?
	in this case, i think jurisdiction matters little...

	not that i want to "make a federal case out of it"...  :^)
    
>     Background check should not be subject to any wait it should be a
>    instant check.

	IF the technology exists (which i doubt) in all states/towns/etc
	to do an instant check (which i doubt) then this would be cool...
	"instant" would be nice...  still a few days wait while i's are
	dotted and t's are crossed represents little more than a minor
	inconvenience to a law abiding gun owner, again imho...  i find 
	it difficult to imagine someone running into a gun shop screaming
	"i need a weapon and i need it NOW DAMMIT!"...   what difference
	does it make, really, if you get it on monday, wednesday, or friday?
	
>     This is already done for TRUE assualt weapons! The so called assualt
>    weapons that are to be baned are semi-auto weapons that have owned by
>    people for almost 100 years!

	good, i'm glad it's already done for assault weapons...  and i 
	NEVER claimed to support ANY BAN ON WEAPONS OR ANY TYPE...
	so apprently, here again we have no argument...

>     Also you and what will datetrmine what a sport weapon is, a large
>    number of people use these so called assualt weapons in a sporting at
>    compation shoots.

	i don't claim to know enough to be the one to make that 
	determination...  if i had ALL the answers i wouldn't be working 
	here!!  :^)  but if i were to take a guess, i would say any fully
	automatic weapon would qualify...  and the special license/permit
	i advocate would NOT BAN the weapon or exclude it from sport 
	shooting activities...

>     And the criminal use of these guns only account for .08% of all
>    violent crimes, more people are killed each using hands and feet as a
>    weapon that these guns.

	good...  i'm glad the number is so low...
    
>    >i think losing your permission to carry for subsequent criminal
>    <offenses is reasonable...
>    
>     Again this is already the law, what gain to make it unlawful again...

	good...  i'm glad it's already the law, and i do support stricter
	enforcement of this law...  but if you ask "what gain?" then i
	must ask "what loss?"    
    
>     First i do not conside a firearm a TOY and I doubt that you meant in
>    that manner either.

	true enough...  i didn't mean to downplay the serious nature of
	firearms...  i only meant "toy" in the sense that it is something 
	can be used for fun and sport...
    
>     The best way to safe guard the public safty is to put the people in
>    jail who misuse guns and make sure the serve there entire sentence in
>    a harsh way.

	and again, we agree...

					da ve    

    just a blurb from a non-gun-owner..
    yesterday's robbery double murder in hudson nude hampster is pretty
    good justification that the gun problem HAS gotten worse...
    just my $1.38....
    chris

    
    re:281
    
    So would it have been any more or less worse if had been done with a
    knife or other object?
    
    Divide Dave

Probably less.  The guards were armed, as well they should be,
and would have been even if gun control laws were working as they
should...but the criminals would have only had knives...not very
good odds for them....

If they had used a bomb, it would have likely been worse, but as we 
all know, bombs and the materials needed to make them, are more
strictly controlled than guns.  There is no right to keep and
bear bombs in the Bill of  Rights...or is there?  I mean, you
could rationalize that a bomb is an 'armed weapon', but we
have rather strict controls on them...and they're hard to get...
and the black market for those materials makes them expensive...
and we don't hear much about the high rate of deaths due to
bombs compared to other methods (a report released today
by the CDC indicates a 14% increase in fatalities due to gunshot
wounds from 1980 to 1991 - I doubt the CDC can be considered
biased on the subject)...


tim

    I find it VERY interesting that the "control" element in grateful are
    almost all from states back east that have had control for
    sometime...(and where crime is WORSE than out here in the wild and
    wooly west) and that the "non-control" element in grateful are mostly
    from out here in the wild west...of course now someone can come back
    and say "what a studid generlization, barnes!"
    
    rfb

    Well...like Jeff...i've sat on the sidelines of this one because like
    the abortion issue, you'll get people with VERY deep convictions on
    both sides of the issue...
    
    i myself do not own a gun and consider myself a pacifist...the question
    you need to ask YOURSELF is this;
    
    If you don't own a gun for sport, but instead, own it for protection,
    are you ready to use it???  
    
    i myself can't kill animals so i don't have any sport weapons, i'm not
    into 'plunking' targets, so i don't have range pistols...if i bought
    one for protection, could i really bring myself to kill someone, even
    if my life was in danger...my response to myself has been;
    
    It is far wiser to look death in the face and have no fear than to fear
    men themselves...
    
    i will go the way that is so destined and if someone with hate, malice
    or injustice so wishes to take my life, i will go without fear...
    
    i realize that not many will choose this course and that is alright,
    but ask yourself deeply, what is it that you fear...this question is 
    even more important than whether or not you have a gun...
    
    Food for thought,
    			Dugo
    
    PS...remember, we have no time for hate!!!
                                              

    
    Tim
    
     All they have to do is walk into the bank take out the guards who
    more than likely don't have a lot of training in hand to hand and are
    subject to surpise attack and no more guards.....
    
     No else is allowed to care a gun so bank gets robbed and guards are
    just as dead..
    
    
    Divide Dave who grows weary of this discussion of death and distruction
    and loss of rights.
    
    

    re.285  Excellent point...if I get what you're saying...I don't fear
    death...it is understandable to fear the unknown, but I don't fear the
    notion of "will I make it to heaven, or hell"...it probably has
    something to do with being raised Protestant, and my church, and my
    minister have views more liberal than most of my friends around here
    who were brought up Catholic, and end up rejecting it...
    
    I think I fear How I die...I certainly don't want to die a violent
    death, and after my bro-in-laws murder, I feel that even stronger.
    Of course it's hard to determine how you would react in a life
    threatening, violent situation...I don't ever intend to own a weapon,
    but if I had one, for the expressed purpose of defending myself or my
    family, I hope I would use it...
    
    interesting witness from the robbery/murder in NH yesterday...a guy who
    had the rifles pointed at him, who ran, and he said something to the
    effect of "I can't believe I ran like a scared rabbit, I wish I had a
    gun"   well, he's a living rabitt today, but his quote could be used
    for interesting debate...what if he had the gun...should he use it in
    that situation ??
    
    hmm, bummer, gotta go to a conference call

    
    Dugo, 
    	
    	dude,
    
    		bud,
    
    			bro,
    
    				we be surfin' the same cosmic wave... :^)
    
    					da ve

    I would use a gun to defend myself and my family, esp. my family.
    
    rfb

>  <<< Note 210.283 by NAC::TRAMP::GRADY "Into the night, an angel to be..." >>>
>

>If they had used a bomb, it would have likely been worse, but as we 
>all know, bombs and the materials needed to make them, are more
>strictly controlled than guns.  There is no right to keep and

actually there are several ggo books on how to make high explosives from 
common household items

Geoff_who_is_absolutely_swamped_and_has_no_time_to_write_more_than_one_brief
_sentence

    
    I just keep open bottles of wheat beer by the doors to my house, that
    keeps all the redneck weirdos away ;^)
    
    Hogan who prefers to defend himself with baseball bats and bottle bombs

re .284

What a stupid generalization, barnes!

Possibly a slightly better one is urban vs rural dwellers.

GeoffK is one of the more outspoken ones here about this issue,
and he certainly lives in the East (well, maybe west of 495, but
certainly East of the Mississippi.

PeterT

    along the lines of east versus west, gun control or no gun control.....
    i have noticed when talking to west coast tour heads they seem to have
    this attitude about us east coasters..........
    "You all scream at shows"
    "You all sing along at shows"
    "You are all uptight"
    "You all yadda yadda  ya"
    Anyone else notice this?
    I have listened to plenty of west coast show bootlegs and have heard
    war whoops and screams and the crowd singing the words to truckin
    or sugar mags...

    
    rfb
    
    The population per sq. mile in the East easily triples over that 
    of the West.  Therefore, you are going to have more of a variety
    of opinions, furthermore, the Massachusetts/New York area is noted 
    as having a primarily liberal vote, compared to a  place like 
    Colorado which clearly does not.
    
    I would also like to note the extensive amount of Deadshows we have 
    here....that could also effect public opinion! ;-) 
     

    
    Randy
    
    
    See what you started!
    
    We had a good discussion going about Gun control and you start a east
    west civil war.
    
     . .
      ,
    \___/
    
    Divide Dave
      

    
    Civil war does not work!!!!
    
    Peace, is always the answer!
    
    (and Deadshows) ;-)

re                     <<< Note 210.293 by SALEM::LEBLANC >>>
               -< We may be from the east but we ain't THAT bad >-

>    along the lines of east versus west, gun control or no gun control.....
>    i have noticed when talking to west coast tour heads they seem to have
>    this attitude about us east coasters..........
>    "You all scream at shows"
>    "You all sing along at shows"
>    "You are all uptight"
>    "You all yadda yadda  ya"
>    Anyone else notice this?

yup.

definitely.

    
    i've noticed all of those things...  with the possible exception
    of "yadda yadda ya"...  :^)
    
    					da ve
    

    da ve
    you never yadda yadda ya'ed before?
    you haven't lived bud!!! :^)

    ...man, i've been getting my ya's ya's out for years...those folks on
    the west coast just don't have a clue...*:'|

    
    hey, that's kind of a personal question doncha think??  i'm only saying 
    i've never seen it at East Coast Dead shows...  :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    					da ve

In article <ce.61017.195@macaw.com>, don.sterner@macaw.com (Don Sterner) writes:
References: <DOCONNOR.94Oct10135357@sedona.intel.com> <DOCONNOR.94Oct10135357@sedona.intel.com> <kia3wxa00iV4E3qYlt@andrew.cmu.edu>

DO> ] > The first phrase of the second amendment is an ]
DO> explanatory clause, not one which enumerates anything.

DO> ] I'll admit that yours is a _possible_ definition.  You act
DO> like it is the ] _only_ definition.  Of that you are wrong.

DO> No, I'm afraid you are. Dig out your old elementry-school
DO> grammar text and diagram the sentence. Then you will see
DO> that, as any English teacher can tell you,
DO> s43+@andrew.cmu.edu is correct.

Stolen from an earlier post:

The militia clause is merely an explanation of why a government would
carefully support a pre-existing individual right (note the wording) out
of collective self-interest, and is otherwise without weight.  If there
was no militia, nor a need for a militia, that would change nothing as
far as the RTKBA is concerned.

Read the following, think about it _real hard_ and get back to us:

                 THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

                       by J. Neil Schulman

     If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up
Carl Sagan, right?  And if you wanted to know about desert
warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no
question about it.  But who would you call if you wanted the top
expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution?

     That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and
formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who
himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on
English usage in the Los Angeles school system.  Mr. Brocki told
me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of
journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of \American Usage and Style: The Consensus\.

     A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of
Professor Copperud's expertise.

     Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for
over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-
year career teaching journalism at USC.  Since 1952, Copperud has
been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of
journalism for \Editor and Publisher\, a weekly magazine focusing
on the journalism field.

     He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an
expert.  Copperud's fifth book on usage, \American Usage and
Style: The Consensus\, has been in continuous print from Van
Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the
Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

     That sounds like an expert to me.

     After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which
I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why
I was interested, I sent the following letter:

                               ***
"July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

     "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as
an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the
intent from the text.

     "The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'

     "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first
part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a
subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing
the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."

     "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take
into consideration issues of political impact or public policy,
but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its
meaning and intent.  Further, since your professional analysis
will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences
of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be
a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath
to support, if necessary."

     My letter framed several questions about the text of the
Second Amendment, then concluded:

     "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major
responsibility and task with this letter.  I am doing so because,
as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the
actual meaning of the Second Amendment.  While I ask that your
analysis not be affected by the political importance of its
results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

                               ***

     After several more letters and phone calls, in which we
discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we
never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second
Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor
Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted
my questions for the sake of clarity):

                               ***

     [Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the
interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute
a present participle, rather than a clause.  It is used as an
adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main
clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall").  The
right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for
maintaining a militia.

     In reply to your numbered questions:

     [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the
right to keep and bear arms \solely\ to "a well-regulated
militia"?;]

     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
positive  statement with respect to a right of the people.

     [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms" \granted\ by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the
Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep
and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be
infringed"?;]

     [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment;
its existence is assumed.  The thrust of the sentence is that the
right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a
militia.

     [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear
arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is,
in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that
condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and
void?;]

     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
depend on the existence of a militia.  No condition is stated or
implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
security of a free state.  The right to keep and bear arms is
deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

     [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being 
necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the
government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and
bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the
entire sentence?;]

     [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
unconditional, as previously stated.  It is invoked here
specifically for the sake of the militia.

     [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-
regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized,"
"well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a
superior authority"?]

     [Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of
a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the
writers for civilian control over the military.

     [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into
account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that
sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into
account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors,
unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

     [Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no
change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the
meaning of the amendment.  If it were written today, it might be
put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be abridged."

     [Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I
would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of
the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

     "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books,
shall not be infringed."

     My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would
be,

     (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence,
and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second
Amendment's sentence?; and

     (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the
right of the people to keep and read Books" \only\ to "a well-
educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a
high-school diploma?]

     [Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely
parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

     (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates
or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

                               ***

     Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he
placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I
made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be
used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

     So now we have been told by one of the top experts on
American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the
United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep
and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the
Constitution from abridging that right.


Don.Sterner@macaw.com       San Leon, Texas       Don't tread on me.

 * RM 1.3 02168 *

From the Internet:

From the  Oct 17, 1994 "Spotlight":

"After backing the biggest assault on the 2nd Amendment in American
history, the hypocritical administration of President Bill Clinton has
decided that the right of the people -- in Russia -- to keep and bear arms
is their best defense against crime.

The Clinton administration has very quietly approved the sale and export of
50,000 US made shotguns to Russia, for the Russians to be better able to
protect themselves against their country's burgeoning crime, particularly
within Russian cities.

According to Business Week, a State Department official said the White
House is trying to keep a lid on the story because "It's a political hot
potato."

    
    in our gun control discussions i don't recall anything about shotguns
    being banned...  maybe i missed it or am forgetting?  i wouldn't say it
    was hypocrytical if he were approving the sale of the same types of
    weapons that are allowed here...
    
    now if he were selling them "assault" weapons, sure, but if they're the
    same as allowed in us law then i don't see it as a big deal...
    
    					da ve

Really.  It's hard to see a problem about approving gun sales to Russia
that he is perfectly willing to allow be sold here too.  You guys is 
just too paranoid and anti-Clinton.

PeterT

    several shot guns were on the list to be banned...it's only thru the
    diligence of people like Geoff (did I get the name right??) that those
    were removed....they will be next...ALL guns are targeted. The people
    behind gun control have said that outloud. 
    
    being paranoid is GOOD for us...like,lookin in your rear view mirror
    and seein a police car
    
    and petert ...i gave Bill an even break.....he broke his promise(s) to
    ME!
    
    rfb

Actually I wasn't saying that shotguns are what is hypocritical, though 
there were some "evil assault" shotguns in the bill.  What I find 
hypocritical is the fact that he is saying firearms are the best way for 
the russians to reduce crime but that the same won't work in the U.S.

Just calling it like I see it.

Geoff

    I say we let people have as many guns as they want, but ban all forms
    of ammunition. That way, gun fanciers (is that the right term?) can
    collect, polish, compare, fetish, display, handle, brandish, whatever
    model they want, they just wouldn't be able to actually shoot them at
    each other. Throwing them would still be allowed. Just an idea.

>                     <<< Note 210.308 by OBSESS::BEAUPRE >>>
>
>    I say we let people have as many guns as they want, but ban all forms
>    of ammunition. That way, gun fanciers (is that the right term?) can
>    collect, polish, compare, fetish, display, handle, brandish, whatever
>    model they want, they just wouldn't be able to actually shoot them at
>    each other. Throwing them would still be allowed. Just an idea.


	If it saves one life...

    I say we let people have as many cars as they want, but ban all forms
    of gasoline. That way, car fanciers (is that the right term?) can
    collect, polish, compare, fetish, display, handle, brandish, whatever
    model they want, they just wouldn't be able to actually drive them at
    each other. Throwing them would still be allowed. Just an idea.

	If it saves one life...

    I say we let people have as many books as they want, but ban all forms
    of lights. That way, book fanciers (is that the right term?) can
    collect, polish, compare, fetish, display, handle, brandish, whatever
    model they want, they just wouldn't be able to actually read them to
    each other. Throwing them would still be allowed. Just an idea.


	If it saves one life...

    I say we let people have as many foods as they want, but ban all forms
    of stoves. That way, food fanciers (is that the right term?) can
    collect, polish, compare, fetish, display, handle, brandish, whatever
    model they want, they just wouldn't be able to actually cook them for
    each other. Throwing them would still be allowed. Just an idea.


Do any of these sound more rediculous or ludicrous than your first 
statement???

Geoff

    I'm not interested in entering into the black hole debate of how
    safe guns are, just like cars, just like food, etc., as
    long as your properly shoot/drive/chew. It just goes on forever
    and proves nothing. The day that I see a news report on television
    about a guy who get drunk and terrorizes his family with a ham
    sandwich, I'll reconsider the logic of this old arguement.
    
    My sense is that this country can't handle guns. Period. And I don't 
    buy the idea the old cowboy logic that the good guys (white hats) 
    need to be able to defend themselves against the bad guys (black hats). 
    Statistics would seem to bear out the fact that when people shoot
    each other, it's usually a family member or friend that they've decided
    to kill. So my idea about banning ammo, is that you get to keep your 
    gun -- but you'd have to get close enough to your victim to hit them 
    over the head. 

>                     <<< Note 210.310 by OBSESS::BEAUPRE >>>
>
>    I'm not interested in entering into the black hole debate of how
>    safe guns are, just like cars, just like food, etc., as
>    long as your properly shoot/drive/chew. It just goes on forever

In other words... you can't change my mind no matter what the facts I'm 
going to cover my ears and not listen so don't even bother trying to 
discuss it.

>    My sense is that this country can't handle guns. Period. And I don't 

We're not advanced enough to take care of ourselves so we have to have 
mommy and daddy government tell us what we can and can't play with.   This 
is horsehockey.  If you can't handle a firearm then don't get one but don't 
get all high and mighty and tell me what I can or cannot handle, or 
can or cannot have.

>    Statistics would seem to bear out the fact that when people shoot
>    each other, it's usually a family member or friend that they've decided
>    to kill. So my idea about banning ammo, is that you get to keep your 
 
Please state the statistics and your source.  Hint:  the 43 times more 
likely to kill a friend or family member is bogus and been proved so many 
times.

Geoff

    i'd like ta change the direction of this note...or maybe not. Maybe i
    just want to ask a question.
    
    Some of our more "liberal" congrees critters voted for  the crime bill
    and are now up for re-election, running against Republicans that vow to
    "take back amerika" (read an article that 1/3 of the republican party
    is now the religious right...another debate) Some of these liberals are
    in a close race with the rep that say "dump Bill and his company"...my
    question for thought is...what's the lesser of the evils? Liberals that
    seem to want to take our rights and freedoms away, but also seem to
    genually care for the people, or the religious right republicans that
    want a return to Raygunnomics??? for me this is  tough one....of course
    if I were in Virginny, there would be no question...i would vote for a
    pig before i voted for Ollie...
    
    rfb

>i would vote for a pig before i voted for Ollie...   

Bring back Pigasus.  

tim

>i would vote for a
>    pig before i voted for Ollie...

i think that would make a good bumper sticker :^)

    Down on DC the hottest race around is Ollie's, so far all the
    Republican Presidential wantabe's have campained with Ollie.
    The independent canadate has a ad called Ollie's World, and how it
    differs from reality. Ollie scares me, since his main support group
    is the religious right, so family values is an issue....
    
    It's good fodder for the talk show.
    
    
    Tom

    One final reply before I excuse myself from the eternal question: 
    
    My reluctance to continue the debate does indeed stem from the fact that
    it has been my experience that the pro-gun lobby, and I'll be generous
    and include gun control advocates as well, will NEVER EVER change their
    minds. No amount of statistical evidence, analagous theory, or kicking
    and screaming will do it. That's been my experience, but hey I could
    be wrong. It's just one of those things, like the topic of abortion,
    where you have two well-defined camps, each armed (sorry) to the teeth
    with enough chapters of anecdotal/statistical/emotional strategem to 
    make the debate last until one party spontaneously combusts.
    
    Now, as far as "mommy and daddy government" is concerned: The parental
    units of our big United States extended family are responsible for
    telling us what we can and can't play with already (FDA, industrial
    safety guidelines, etc.) Where we differ, apparently, is the deciding
    on the acceptable level of parenting. I sort of believe that if you're 
    only (potentially) hurting yourself, you should be able to do whatever 
    the hell you want. But when it comes to the potential to hurt someone 
    else, I have no problem with sensible federal regulation, and from
    my perspective that definitely includes deciding whether or not 
    someone has a right to carry a loaded 45 into Burger King. 
    
    I believe that you can trace the push for gun control directly to the 
    country's collective inability to handle firearms safely. I don't think 
    it's a grand conspiracy.

    I definitely think the "religious right" is much too extreme, but I do
    applaud the overall meaning of family values....maybe if family meant
    more in this country, violence wouldn't be so out of control...a good
    strong family upbringing is so important in this crazeeee day and age,
    and I despise the fact that often when "family values" are mentioned,
    it is so often implied that the person belongs to the over-zealous
    religious right
    
    Wes

>                     <<< Note 210.316 by OBSESS::BEAUPRE >>>

>    on the acceptable level of parenting. I sort of believe that if you're 
>    only (potentially) hurting yourself, you should be able to do whatever 
>    the hell you want. But when it comes to the potential to hurt someone 
>    else, I have no problem with sensible federal regulation, and from
>    my perspective that definitely includes deciding whether or not 
>    someone has a right to carry a loaded 45 into Burger King. 
 
Actually, if the general populace were allowed to be armed then some of 
these mass slayings that have taken place could have been thwarted or at 
least minimized.  if only one other person on the Long Island RR had been 
armed then the psycho who shot 15(?) people probably only would have gotten 
1, maybe 2 before he was incapacitated.

>    I believe that you can trace the push for gun control directly to the 
>    country's collective inability to handle firearms safely. I don't think 
>    it's a grand conspiracy.


Actually the facts point in another direction.  In the late 60's Mr. Nixon 
wanted to declare martial law because of all the anti war protests that 
were happening.  He was advised against this by the CIA because, according 
to their reports, the populace was too well armed and would not stand for 
such drastic measures.  Shortly after this Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) was 
formed by the recently retired head of the CIA (whose name I can't remember 
at the present time).

Geoff

    geoff
    webster? head of the cia 

    Does it strike anyone else as odd that Oliver North would campaign
    on a values platform?  If it weren't for the arrangements made
    to get his testimony on TV, which indirectly spawned his campaign,
    he'd be in jail today.

    He doesn't even believe in constitutional government, but he
    could well win this race.  The mind boggles!

    Lessee... a crook in Congress... mebbe it's not so odd after all.

    Tom

    >Lessee... a crook in Congress... mebbe it's not so odd after all.

    >Tom
    
    Civics .101  see how easy this is ??!!!  :)  :(
    sad but true Tom, on both sides of the floor...
    

    picture a dancin bear here REAL FAMILY VALUES and a STF here
    
    bumper stickers made in Colo Spgs when the Religious right adn Focus on
    the Family spearheaded the anti gay rights amendment II, which BTW was
    found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Colo Supreme court this week...(DUH!)
    
    one of my favorites locally, plus the one that says "Doing my best to
    piss off the religious right"
    
    badf time to be discussing guns here in Colo...IT'S HUNTIN SEASON!!!  
    %^)
    
    rfb

    
    
    I've decided the only suitable use for O. North and his ilk
    is to laugh at them.  But I don't find them funny.  Can 
    anybody help me?

    I got a kick outta the Colorado Supreme Court declaring Amendment 2
    unconstitional on National Coming Out Day.  What a bunch of cards! 
    They should get extra points for timing and sense of humor...
    
    RFB, I've seen your REAL FAMILY VALUES bumper sticker - amidst the
    collage of others on the old datsun...;-)
    
    ...and if the rest of you think I'm going to get pulled into the pun
    control debate again, well, light up and leave me alone!
    
    tim
    

         <<< FOUNDR::DISK$PAGE_SWAP1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 3090.63                    Neal Knox Reports                       63 of 63
MARKO::MCKENZIE "Government - The perfect crime."    68 lines  10-OCT-1994 14:29
                             -< CIA & HCI / NCBH >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        CIA-NCBH Connection? 
 
                          By NEAL KNOX 
 
   Washington, D.C. (Dec. 19) -- The curious connection between
President Nixon's CIA and the two leading anti-gun organizations,
reported in my new "Guns & Ammo" column, has caused an uneasy stir
among the CIA-hating hard left. 
 
     Particularly in the Nixon years, the left was convinced that
the CIA was trying to take over the country.  In October 1973, when
President Nixon ordered the "Watergate" special prosecutor fired,
an almost hysterical acquaintance told me Nixon was ready to 
mobilize the CIA and Army and declare himself dictator. 
 
     Even if the President had such notions, and I never thought
he did, American citizens would not have tolerated an overthrow of
the Constitution, and were adequately armed to make such a coup 
impossible -- which is exactly what the framers of the Bill of 
Rights had in mind when they guaranteed the Second Amendment right
to keep and bear arms.   
 
    But just for the sake of discussion, if someone within the 
White House or the CIA had given serious thought to a "bloodless
coup," and been thwarted by the existence of an armed populace, 
would they perhaps have tried to do something about removing that
roadblock? 
 
     However we might speculate upon that question, the fact is 
that during the next few months both of the leading anti-gun 
organizations were formed -- and a principle player in the 
formation of both was one Edwin O. Welles, who had just "retired"
from the CIA. 
 
     As noted in Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Nelson Shields' 
book, ex-CIA agent Welles was the first chairman of the National
Council to Control Handguns (later renamed HCI). 
 
     Further, according to Rev. Jack Corbett, who founded the 
National Coalition to Ban Handguns under the auspices of the United
Methodist Church, Welles was a "guiding light" to NCBH -- an 
ostensibly competing organization. 
 
      During 1974 (the year both groups were formed) I had several
telephone conversations/debates with Dr. Corbett.  Once when he was
stymied by my recitation of facts that refuted his anti-gun 
arguments, Corbett handed the phone to Welles -- to my utter 
astonishment. 
 
      What particularly puzzled me about that conversation is that
ex-CIA Agent Welles didn't seem the sort of zealot that would help
form not one but two anti-gun organizations.  Years later I 
learned, through a mutual acquaintance, that at the time he started
HCI and helped form NCBH he owned two handguns (which he supposedly
buried in his back yard) and a Sharps-Borchardt rifle. 
 
     What brought this puzzle to mind was a fundraiser for NCBH 
hosted at his Georgetown home last September by the man President
Nixon appointed as CIA Director, William Colby. 
 
     The "Liberals" love the NCBH about as much as they hate the
CIA, so the linkage of the two caused some puzzlement around 
Washington. 
 
   Colby told a "Washington Post" gossip columnist that he had been
"quietly working with NCBH for the past several years," and that
he had "learned  of the dangers of handguns during his years at the
CIA" -- from September 4, 1973 to January 30, 1976. 

    those of you who belong to the Fallon Clinic (local HMO) got some 
    interesting stuff in your latest newsletter...  granted, this often 
    gets tossed out in the trash without being read, but a couple of 
    articles there caught my eye...
    
    the front page has "one day in the life of american children" and lists
    some disturbing numbers...  every day,
    	3 children die from child abuse
    	9 children are murdered
    	13 children die from guns
    	27 children-a classroom-die from poverty
    	30 children are wounded by guns
    	63 babies die before they are one month old
    	101 babies die before thier first birthday
    	145 babies are born at a very low birth weight (less tahn 3.25 lbs)
    	202 children are arrested for drig offenses
    	307 children are arrested for crimes of violence
    	340 children are arrested for drinking or drunk driving
    	480 children get syphillis or gonorrhea
    	636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care
    	801 babies are born with a low birthwieght (less tehn 5.5 lbs)
    	1115 teenagers have abortions
    	1234 children run away from home
    	1340 teenagers have babies
    	2255 teenagers drop out of school
    	2350 children are in adult jails
    	2781 teenagers get pregnant
    	2860 children see thier parents divorce
    	2868 children are born into poverty
    	3325 babies are born to unmarried women
    	5314 children are arested for all offenses
    	5703 teenagers are victims of violent crime
    	7945 children are reported neglected or abused
    	8400 teenagers become sexually active
    	100000 children are homeless
    	1222000 latchkey children come home to houses where there is a gun
    
    
    there's also and ariticle inside that discusses gun safety in the
    home...  while the things listed in the article seem to make sense in
    terms of safety, it's kind of hard to say that guns stored like they
    suggest would be of much use in a self defense situation...
    	always keep guns unloaded in the home
    	always keep guns out of sight and reach of children
    	always keep guns securely locked up
    	always equip guns with trigger locks and other childproof devices
    	always keep ammo locked up and away from guns, heat and electrical
    		sources
    	before handling gunsd, always make sure they are unloaded
    	always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
    	never demonstrate unsafe behavior with guns that you wouldn't
    		want your kids to emulate
    	take personal long-term responsibility for your childrens 
    		supervision as well as thier ongoing education about
    		gun safety
    	ask other parents whether they keep guns inthe home and where
    		they are kept...
    
    
    i thought about throwing these into the world we live in note, but with
    all the gun stuff mentioned i thoguht it might be more appropos here...
    
    no, i'm not trying to start anything necessarily... just stuff that
    cought my eye in light of recent discussion here...
    
    					da ve

	Oh fine, make me cry while I'm at work....

	In total seriousness, though, I don't think it's a matter of 
	legislating gun control or outlawing drugs or anything like that.  
	Legislation doesn't work if education doesn't happen along with it
	(or in place of it).

	It frightens me to no end that people don't have to have a license
	to have children, they can just do it....but the good and caring 
	people who can't have children and WANT them are, most often rejected 
	from the adoption system because they are deemed "unfit." 

	Education, education, education.....people need to learn that with
	every action they have, there is a reaction.  And that reaction 
	ripples throughout our society like a wildfire.  What we do with our
	lives and how we present ourselves to others, and to our children
	has a big impact on why society is the way it is today.

	If we choose to have a gun in our house, and not educate our child on
	the use and the danger of it, that child is as good as dead, or 
	perhaps his playmate.

	If we choose to use drugs, aren't responsible about it, and don't 
	properly educate our children on what it is, what it can do, why we
	do it, and how it can affect us, and be open with children about it, 
	that child is as good as dead when that child walks into your room, 
	finds it, and treats it like candy.    

	Alcohol is a HUGE example, it's use is so hidden and clandestine in 
	American homes, it's no wonder we have the worst alcohol abuse 
	rates in the world!

	<  Here's where I start to rant and rave....>

	Do we care about our children?  These children are our future.  How we 
	are with them today, and how we are with OURSELVES today, determines
	their future.  We cannot weasle out of this responsibility, if we 
	have someone to blame for how our generation is today, it's our
	parents, they molded us into this, as did their parents.  And, the
	society of tomorrow, when our children are adults, WE are to blame for.

	Children who are a product of divorce, grow up not trusting.  Children
	who are a product of drug use during pregnancy grow up with severe
	health problems (if they grow up at all).  Children whose parents were 
	products of racism grow up believing that no matter how hard they try, 
	they will always be hated.   Chilren in single parent homes grow up 
	not knowing how to share, or compromise and work together.

	Okay, now that I've ranted and raved.... ;-)  All I really wanted to 
	say is that when we live at the "It's all about Me, Me, Me" 
	level, we're lying to ourselves and selling ourselves and our children 
	short....  We create the climate in which we live.  So, we have no one 
	to blame but ourselves and our refusal to educate and be a role model
	for our children and others.

	Reading sh!t like this hurts....especially knowing there's only so 
	much, I....as one person, can do to make a difference.


	Ick....

	kath

    well said....I've said the same things before, but your rantings and 
    ravings make more sense than mine, 
    we agree 100%
    rfb

da ve,

I will agree that it is very hard to child-proof a firearm and have it be 
useful for home defense.  However, it is not hard at all to gun-proof your 
children.  It is very unlikely that a person (child or adult) properly 
educated will have an accidnt with a firearm.  At 4 years old, Nathan 
already knows 10 rules for the safe handling of firearms and knows exactly 
what to do if he were to find an unattended firearm.  he has known this for 
almost 2 years.

As Kathy said legislation is not the answer.  Education is.

Geoff

    I couldn't agree more, kath.
    
    One of the more interesting statements that came out of the recent
    Population Control summit was that the single most effective method of
    reducing population growth was education, particularly encouraging
    girls to stay at school. They weren't talking about learning about
    birth control etc, but learning to think, and that there are choices.
    
    re the statistics
    
    Did they mention what they defined as 'children', especially since they
    call out apparently seperate numbers for teens? Arbitrarily defining
    the categories is an effective way to cook the numbers, although they
    would still be scary.
    
    gary

    Kath,
    
    i' think i'm getting to like having you around in here...  :^)
    at the risk of being redundant, i agree too!  education is key...
    but don't sell short your own ability to make a difference...  we
    may all be small people in abig world but thre are always ways
    we can make a difference and we never know for sure how much differnce
    that can be! (hmmm, reminds me that in a onth or so "It's A Wonderful
    Life" will be on tv 5 times a day :^) :^) :^)
    
    re Geoff...
    
    :^)  i'm not trying to start all that again, really!  :^)  just a
    thought that occurred to me reading it...  i'm a big believer in safety
    don't misunderstand...  i couldn't help thinking though, that the slant
    of all those "always do this" stuff made a gun pretty much useless!
    while i tend to favor some controls on weapons, it seemed to me to be a
    little carried away...
    
    re Gary...
    
    shoot... (er no pun intended!)  i forgot what i was going to reply to
    yours!!!  :^}
    
    					da ve

    ohyeah...  Gary, no they didn't define "children"...  i took it to mean
    "under 18" since they mention things like drunk driving adn stuff...
    the articles weren't much more than what i typed in,...  the source
    that Fallon used was cited as The State of America's Children Yearbook
    1994 from the Children's Defense Fund...
    
    						da ve

>    but don't sell short your own ability to make a difference...  we
>    may all be small people in abig world but thre are always ways
>    we can make a difference

Most definitely true, da ve.  It's interesting, though....people will talk
until they're blue in the fact saying how much difference they want to make,
and then when it comes time for someone to actually do something about it
in a BIG way, no one raises their hands to volunteer.

Everyone wants it to happen, but no one wants to sacrifice their "precious
time" to do something to MAKE it happen.

Maybe I'll post invites here for all the community service projects I do...it
would be fun to have some of ya'll here.  (There's on Saturday in Worcester,
rebuilding the Homeless Veterans Shelter).

>    i' think i'm getting to like having you around in here...  :^)

<aaaaaahhhhhh.....blush.....thank you.....>  :-)  Actually, I like being
here, people here are fun, and you let me rage even though I know absolutely
nothing about the Grateful Dead.  :-)

kat

    none of us know anything about the Grateful Dead...we just "interpret"
    the songs as we hear 'em......%^)

da_ve,

I know you're not trying to start it up again and I agree that they are 
going overboard.  I was just pointing out that it is easier to teach 
children about firearms than it is to teach a firearm about children.

Geoff

P.S. Deleted note .1000 in the For Digressions only note.  I entered it and 
then deleted it because it was over 2600 lines long.  There is a move afoot 
called Operation Vampire Killer 2000, that has been formed by a group of 
civil servants (National Guard, Police, and others) who are very upset 
about what they are being asked to do by their superiors.  it is a very 
interesting document, if only to see how others view what is happening to 
and in this country.  I will place it in
SALES::SNUFFY$:[gkeller.public]OVK2.txt if anyone is interested in reading 
it.

Geoff

>             <<< Note 210.335 by ASLAN::GKELLER "Access for all" >>>

>SALES::SNUFFY$:[gkeller.public]OVK2.txt if anyone is interested in reading 

Make that SALES::"BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]OVK2.txt

Geoff

    that Vampire Killer thing is some wierd sh*t....sorta hard to swallow
    all of it...
    
    
    rfb

> Make that SALES::"BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]OVK2.txt

PACKER> dir SALES::BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]OVK2.txt
%DIRECT-E-OPENIN, error opening SALES::BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]*.*;* as input
-RMS-E-PRV, insufficient privilege or file protection violation

Did I type something wrong?

- jeff_interested

>              <<< Note 210.338 by SUBPAC::MAGGARD "Integrate!" >>>
>                                -< help needed >-
>
>> Make that SALES::"BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]OVK2.txt
>
>PACKER> dir SALES::BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]OVK2.txt
>%DIRECT-E-OPENIN, error opening SALES::BIG_BIRD$:[GKELLER.PUBLIC]*.*;* as input
>-RMS-E-PRV, insufficient privilege or file protection violation
>
>Did I type something wrong?
>
>- jeff_interested


I'm not sure what is wrong with the file or directory.  At the moment I 
can't even copy it from my public directory to my to my top level directory
.  However, you can also get OVK2000 from the following places:

Internal:
    see note FOUNDR::FIREARMS 6035.34

    FTP:
    cybernews.comm.cornell.edu
    /pub/usa/patriot

Geoff

Article: 184949
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl10.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: discipio@crl.com (William R. Discipio Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: USA TODAY EDITORIALS ON GUN CONTROL
Date: 31 Jan 1995 22:48:38 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <3gnas6$8jp@crl10.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl10.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
 
Reprinted without permission from the January 31, 1995 issue of USA TODAY
(Typos are mine.)
 
GUN LAWS ARE NO ANSWER
 
By. Bill K. Brewster, D-Okla.
 
You'd think USA TODAY would know what was going on in the USA today.  But 
it doesn't.  Leaving law-abiding Americans disarmed and defenseless in 
the face of violent criminals who continue to roam freely only encourages 
an increase -- not a decrease -- in violent crime.
 
Since USA TODAY doesn't get it, here's the reality of the USA today:
 
-No gun law has ever reduced violent crime.  The District of Columbia has 
banned guns since 1976; the murder rate has risen 200%.  Bans don't stop 
criminals.
 
-According to the Justice Department, the firearms banned in last year's 
crime bill account for far fewer homicides than those caused by 
criminals' fists and feet.
 
-The average murderer spends just 7.7 years in prison, the average rapist 
3.3 years.
 
-During the last two years, rape, other sexual attacks, robbery, assault 
and personal thefts increased by 6.7%.
 
-During the same time, prosecutions for federal weapons and firearms 
offenses have dropped a staggering 23%.
 
-64% of Americans believe gun control laws do not reduce crime, according 
to a CBS poll, and 60% oppose gun bans, according to a Gallup survey.
 
-More than 2 million times a year, citizens use lawfully owned firearms, 
including semiautomatic firearms, to defend themselves and their families 
from criminal attack, according to Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck.
 
Gun laws aren't the answer.  Criminal attacks have increased while 
federal prosecutions declined.  Yet the "disarm America" politicians and 
media can only think to offer a sure-to-fail gun ban.  But Americans know 
that regulating the law-abiding doesn't stop criminals -- prosecution and 
punishment does.
 
Any weapon used in a crime is an assault weapon.  Those guns covered in 
last year's ban account for less than 1% of all homicides.  How can 
addressing only 1% of all homicides have any measurable effect on crime?  
We should be attacking criminals; they are the common thread that 
connects 100% of all homicides and violent crimes.
 
Preserve the right of law-abiding Americans.  Increase, rather than 
decrease, tough prosecution of armed criminals.  Congress should pass 
tough minimum-sentencing laws for crimes committed with guns, not gun 
bans.  That's the reality Americans want and voted for last November.  
And that's the reality Americans expect from this Congress.
-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
William Di Scipio                  They'll be hunting politicians with 
discipio@crl.com, WC1J@N0ARY       dogs by the end of the decade.
=+=+Live Free or Die=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=DON'T TREAD ON ME=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=