Mr. Zambezi wrote:
Thanks for the cite, Mr. Z. BUT, when I looked up this law on http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/code2.html, I noticed that you left out paragraph (4), which states in part:
In other words, if the magazine is manufacutured in a country that does not require serial numbers to be stamped on magazines, and the non-U.S. manufacturer chooses not to put serial numbers on it, it can be imported, sold, and posessed, even if it’s a large capacity magazine manufactured after 1994.
Precisely the opposite: I want sex education in the schools unless it’s being done by somebody’s pet stooge (minister or otherwise); I would be happy to accomodate gun education of the sort I discussed earlier, unless it’s being done by somebody’s pet stooge (NRA or otherwise).
It shouldn’t. Because no one knew he’d taken that stance when he was rolling through the primaries, his personal position means nothing in terms of support. And a President still can’t do a whole lot without Congress’ help.
Oh, gimme a break. The tenor of the posts before I jumped in treated HCI as propagandanists, while the NRA was regarded as an honest, impartial source of information on guns. I was responding to that.
My comment about the NRA’s use of the ‘full enforcement’ issue isn’t without foundation: the NRA’s earlier hostility to the ATF (and its enforcement budget) is a matter of public record.
But here in this thread, Glitch and I have been discussing the question of laws that should be enforced. You might read that part of the discussion before you accuse me of tossing out red herrings, since I have raised some points that haven’t yet been rebutted.
WTF?? What laws have I suggested shouldn’t be enforced? What criminals have I suggested shouldn’t be punished?
I am against the death penalty because it’s the ultimate sanction, and we have shown no willingness to treat it as such. I was for the reinstatement of the death penalty when it was reinstated; I assumed we’d take it seriously. I was wrong; we treat death penalty cases with all the gravity of traffic offenses. Hell, even Pat Robertson is disturbed by the way we’re applying the death penalty.
Ya wanna duke it out about the death penalty somewhere else, I’m game; you might want to read “The Wrong Man” from the November '99 Atlantic Monthly, because I’d be using its arguments and statistics.
No, that’s not what they did. That was discussed in this thread prior to my post that you’re responding to.
Why - just because you said so? They’re relevant just like killings are relevant - because both murders and suicides are easier with guns than with other lethal devices. That’s why the vast majority of killings are committed with guns, and why it’s easily the most common suicide weapon. If one’s not available, the potential suicide is forced to further ponder the question of whether s/he really wants to go through with it. Sometimes the outcome is the same, sometimes it’s not. But the fact that it’s not always the same means that unavailability of guns reduces suicide numbers.
Does it? I apologize. If you can break out those numbers and improve the count, please do. I cited the BJS pages I relied on; feel free to go there and see if you can dig out better numbers.
You may have heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. You may have heard about Unsafe at Any Speed. You may have heard about seatbelts, airbags, and other engineering to make cars safer, courtesy of people with similar motivation to the Mothers. We bleeding-heart liberals have paid just a wee tad of attention to the issue of highway safety over the years, with, by the way, a great deal of success. And we’re still working on it, thanks.
From conservatives, we get higher speed limits, opposition to funding mass transit, and ‘the free market will take care of it.’
No, but due to the disparate nature of violent events, it wouldn’t have exactly been a clarion call for any particular action. Sheez.
Let’s see, a century’s worth of time in between the two events, none of the same people involved, the fact that (going bact to the '60s, anyway) there was a high overlap between the supporters of the civil-rights movement and the supporters of the gun-control movement…but you calls them as you sees them. Whatever.
BTW, how does the price of a handgun, in this post-Saturday Night Special era, compare with a color TV or a pair of Air Jordans? Since you raised the question of affordability.
Let’s summarize:
Pro-Gunner #1: they’re trying to take away our guns.
RTF: No, they’re not.
Ecks: Well, how nice of you to let me exercise my constitutional rights.
Oh really? Cite?
I was using it in the (quite frequently used, in these discussions) sense of banning future sales of such weapons. So no, I’m not talking about taking anything away from anyone.
While you’ve made a reasonable misinterpretation or two, by and large you’ve twisted my words, and taken them out of context. (I think I’ve showed, in a couple of for-instances, just how big a difference that context makes.)
MysterEcks, I’m done with responding to your cheap-shot comments. I don’t mind debating this issue with Glitch, or weirddave, or tracer, or UncleBeer, or Freedom if he should reappear. Opponents of gun control have some legitimate arguments, and getting involved in these debates has made me respect some of those arguments considerably more than I used to. But you’re just tossing up garbage and distortion. I’m through with you.
No, I never did, in either High School I attended. But, it didn’t matter, because I didn’t need to.
But, not everybody is going to give up guns. And I don’t think that education is going to end all deaths. I never said that. I said, children should be educated to end accidental shootings. I will repeat, children should be educated to end accidental shootings. I base that on this: When I lived in Utah, no child died of an accidental shooting in the area I grew up. That was not an accident. Everybody in the area * knew how to use, handle, operate,and respect weapons *
Believing that you doing your part to end gun violence by simply not owning one is admirable, to a certain extent. But it’s also naive, because in the grand scheme of things, it makes absolutely no difference. Even if your children never encounter a gun in their childhood, they are still going to grow into adults…and they might have a fear of firearms, and not a respect for them.
No, no one will ever be shot by you. Unless of course, something happens that you can’t foresee with your obvious psychic powers. How can you make such a broad and general statement? You have absolutely no clue what’s going to happen in the next hour, much less the rest of your life. What harm does it do to be prepared? You already stated that you know nothing about gun, or safety procedures…what if one day you will need to know? Or are you going to sit in your smug lil world, confident that nothing is going to happen that is outside your control?
Way back on page 1 of this thread, RTFirefly wrote:
A couple years ago, one of the cities or counties in the San Francisco Bay Area tried to pass an ordinance outlawing all guns that weren’t useful for sporting purposes. This law would have prohibited many kinds of short-range self-defense firearms. The only reason the ordinance didn’t go into effect was that California has a State law prohibiting local governments from enacting gun control laws that are any more stringent than those at the State level. (This State law recently came under legislative attack, though.)
Which, by the way, are the same kinds of rifles used for deer hunting.
tracer: I confess I hadn’t heard about the attempt by whichever SF area jurisdictions to try to outlaw guns other than hunting rifles. I’m glad it didn’t succeed; people should be able to have handguns to defend themselves with.
I know that some jurisdictions have long since outlawed all guns (e.g. Washington DC, for all the good it does), but I tend to think of such laws as a historical artifact, like laws banning oral sex: nobody pays attention to 'em, and you couldn’t pass a law like that today. Obviously, I was wrong, or pretty close to it. Thanks for enlightening me.
tracer, I’m assuming you’re referring to rifles that are lethal at great distances. Whichever you mean, could you explain the need for such a rifle for hunting deer?
It may be different out in the wide-open spaces of the west, but in my tree-covered Appalachians, you’re lucky if you can see a deer a few hundred yards away, let alone a mile. All that extra range is just an accident waiting to happen, IMO - and occasionally it does happen. Seems that gun barrels, or bullets, could be modified to be less aerodynamically efficient, so as to lose their force at a more reasonable distance. (What that distance should be, of course, is a whole 'nother debate.)
Oh, the same way I don’t need to practice handling a gun?
If we all used that as an excuse not give give up our own guns, then no one would ever give up any guns at all.
No child died of an accidental shooting in the area I grew up in either. Some were shot on purpose, though.
What’s wrong with fearing a deadly weapon? I’d rather have my children grow up to fear guns than to love them.
I don’t have to be psychic to know that I will not pick up a gun. I have decided that I do not want to ever touch a gun, so I won’t do it. What the rest of the world does is beyond my ability to forsee or control, but I control what I do. You are not going to convince me that I need to know how to handle a gun. You might as well try to convince a vegetarian that she needs to know how to cook meat “just in case”.
No, because I can use the grey matter in between my ears to figure things out from examples, movies, pictures, whatever. I don’t need hands on examples.
Like I said before, being educated does not tantamount to actually using a gun. I’ve always known HOW to use a gun, but I’ve never actually shot one. And even if some were shot on purpose, I am not trying to deal with homicides. I’m talking about accidents.
Fear has never accomplished anything worthwhile, ever. The only way fear can do anything, is if it’s coupled with respect. The only way to gain respect is through education. For example, I am deadly afraid of snakes. However, I know enough about snakes to know that if I respect them and their space, they will leave me alone. So, be afraid of guns. However, have enough education to know how to respect them, so a problem never arises.
You may have every good intention in the world of not picking up a gun. You may make a concentrated effort to never touch a gun. But you know? Sh*t happens when you least expect it, and when it does, you should be prepared. I don’t plan on being lost in the wildreness, but I made the effort of learning how to survive for 72 hours in the lost in the woods. You don’t plan on ever encountering a gun, but you don’t know. What harm can from knowing what to do? Can you tell me one negative thing about having education, other then “If someone knows how to use a gun,they will use it and kill somebody” Millions of people know how to handle and respect guns and have never shot a single living thing.
Seeing as how frying up some chicken is not the same to taking a human life, I don’t think that applies. It also doesn’t make sense. “Just in case” of what? The “just in case” example I have offered all can happen, do happen, and are problems.
According to the statistics posted by Myster Ecks back on the first page of the thread, in 1995 1,225 Americans were killed in gun accidents while 15,551 were killed in gun homicides. Even if all of those accidental deaths were due to a lack of gun training (which seems unlikely; even experienced people make mistakes), then they are still far outnumbered by the intentional deaths caused by people who apparently knew how to use guns.
That’s a pretty bold statement.
Oh, so you don’t feel that you need to learn how to safely handle snakes the way reptile experts do? You think it’s enough just to avoid getting too close to a snake or trying to pick one up? Funny, that’s how I feel about guns.
Do you honestly think that everyone should learn to deal with every single possible potentially dangerous situation they might ever find themselves in? You do realize that that’s impossible, don’t you?
It’s not encountering guns that I plan not to do, it’s handling guns. I don’t want to handle guns, so I’m not going to do it. Why do you want me to do something that I think is dangerous and wrong?
Again, I never said that, and if you continue to insist that I did then you are a liar.
And millions of people don’t know how to handle guns and have also never shot a single living thing.
Many people die from eating improperly cooked meat. If your logic were applied to meat, then even people who never eat meat and are morally opposed to the killing of animals for meat should learn how to properly cook meat. After all, they might someday find themselves in a situation where they need to cook meat and if they don’t know how then they could accidently kill someone by feeding them improperly cooked meat.
According to the statistics posted by Myster Ecks back on the first page of the thread, in 1995 1,225 Americans were killed in gun accidents while 15,551 were killed in gun homicides. Even if all of those accidental deaths were due to a lack of gun training (which seems unlikely; even experienced people make mistakes), then they are still far outnumbered by the intentional deaths caused by people who apparently knew how to use guns.
That’s a pretty bold statement.
Oh, so you don’t feel that you need to learn how to safely handle snakes the way reptile experts do? You think it’s enough just to avoid getting too close to a snake or trying to pick one up? Funny, that’s how I feel about guns.
Do you honestly think that everyone should learn to deal with every single possible potentially dangerous situation they might ever find themselves in? You do realize that that’s impossible, don’t you?
It’s not encountering guns that I plan not to do, it’s handling guns. I don’t want to handle guns, so I’m not going to do it. Why do you want me to do something that I think is dangerous and wrong?
Again, I never said that, and if you continue to insist that I did then you are a liar.
And millions of people don’t know how to handle guns and have also never shot a single living thing.
Many people die from eating improperly cooked meat. If your logic were applied to meat, then even people who never eat meat and are morally opposed to the killing of animals for meat should learn how to properly cook meat. After all, they might someday find themselves in a situation where they need to cook meat and if they don’t know how then they could accidently kill someone by feeding them improperly cooked meat.
So the 1,225 deaths shouldn’t be stopped because there are more intentional murders? Murders are going to happen no matter what. If I want to murder someone badly enough, I could think of many ways to do it that has nothing to do with guns. So homicides are completely different. In other words, some murders are unstoppable. However, accidents can be stopped. And education may not be the best step, however, it should be the first one.
Do you realize how hard it is to learn everything? It’s very very difficult, but some of us are in a constant search for knowledge. So yes, I think all people should spend time actively educating themselve on everything. That’s one very good way to fight ignorance.
Why can’t you concede that no matter what you want to do, need to do, or intend to do, it’s not all going to happen? So YOU don’t want to be educated. Great. Does that mean that other people shouldn’t be educated?
And at least 1,225 people who don’t know how to handle a gun have shot and killed another living thing. Like I said before, we can’t stop murders and homicides, but we can prevent accidents. I would rather be active then reactive, and prevention is the best method of saving lives.
If millions of people owned snakes, and kept them in their homes, for self-defense/hunting or whatever else, then I would learn to handle them. Because the chance of finding one would be much much higher.
That statement implies that **once a child is taught how to use a gun the child will go on to kill themselves or another child with one. **
So, you did say that.
It isn’t hard, it’s impossible – for everyone except for Uncle Cecil, of course.
If you think you can possibly educate yourself on everything then clearly your self-education program hasn’t taught you much.
I have said again and again that other people can take all the gun handling lessons they want. I have never tried to stop anyone else from learning to handle a gun. It’s a shame you feel you must defend your position by making up ridiculous lies about mine, but since you seem unable to keep from doing so I am afraid this will have to be my last post in this thread.
How do you know all of those people didn’t know how to handle a gun? Even someone who knows how to handle a gun may make a mistake. That mistake might not even be a mistake in handling the gun. If my father had shot me all those years ago I think it would have been fair to call my death accidental, but it wouldn’t have been an accident caused by ignorance of guns on my father’s part. Another man I know, one who once bragged to me about all the safety precautions he took with his gun, had a bad reaction to a new combination of perscription medication and blacked out – only to wake up later with his gun in his hand and bullet holes in the wall and door. Luckily his family was out of the house at the time or they might have been killed. I wish I could say that this convinced him to get rid of the gun, but it didn’t. It did give me one more reason to believe that “gun safety” is a fallacy, though.
No I did not. I made a flippant remark that you wrongly interpreted to mean that. If I had wanted to say “Everyone who knows how to use a gun is a killer” I damn well would have said “Everyone who knows to use a gun is a killer”.
Incidentally, the annual homicide rate over the last decade has been around 8 or 9 deaths by homicide per 100,000 population. With a U.S. population of around 250,000,000, this works out to around 21,000 homicides in the U.S. per year.
If we assume this figure held true in 1995, when according to MysterEcks there were 15,551 homicides caused by firearms, then about 3/4 of all homicides committed that year were committed by firearms.
Slythe, you are even more misinformed on this subject than the last time we tangled, almost two years ago.
I have my facts straight, but am mostly tired of jacking off on-line with uninformed people like you.
That is until you once again laid fingers to keyboard and tried to whip up some more anti-gun sympathy with unsubstantiated allegations:
Cite? Bill Number? Link to the Bill, with the wording included? Photographs of unregulated gun sales at gun shows? The name and date of the last gun show you personally attended?
And this doozy:
Once again, you show your true colors as a rabid gun-hater with broad, unsupported and unsubstantiated assertions that law abiding gun owners are the true root-cause of gun violence in our country.
You make up outrageous statements, generate “facts” at will, slander complete strangers (and a signifigant portion of your fellow citizens) and never, ever, even once cite a credible study, a verifiable quote or photograph, or a link to at least one article supporting your position.
You aren’t engaged in a debate; you are engaged in the tactics of mud-slinging, impassioned rhetoric and the outright fabrication of lies, half-truths and wishful thinking.
I am not an administrator. I cannot tell you to go away, as much as I might wish that you would. But for the sake of some form of integrity and intellectual honesty, try to dial back the rhetoric, and do even the basic research to support your position(s).
It is people like you (and our hypocritical moderators) that have driven others (and soon, myself) away from this board, with thinly veiled politically motivated personal attacks disguised as “reasoned, intellectual debate”.
Like I said before, I’m tired of mentally jacking-off with the likes of The Straight Dope. I’m doing something about my beliefs, with community involvement, political activism, membership in and financial contributions to the NRA, the NRA-ILA, the NRA-PVF, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Second Amendment Task Force, the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Single Action Shooting Society (“Garland” Bob S.).
So keep on talking out your ass, Slythe. NRA membership is growing, thanks in no small part to honest, intelligent Americans who are sick unto death of your kind, with your lies, hypocrisy and unreasoned hatred of your fellow law abiding citizens.
ExTank
Happy trails, and signing off…
WTF is that crap at the end of my post!!??
You NRA-bashers don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Eddie Eagle, the kidie-porn inducing child safety program that leads to rabid gun ownership Lamia is so scared to death of teaches kids four, just four basic safety rules to children age two and up:
There is no propagandizing, no recruiting, no distribution of free guns, cigarettes and booze.
And for an “evil” association that lobbies against sensible restrictions on cop killer bullets, they sure seem to be doing a lot of business with the law enforcement community.
No doubt Slythe will dismiss all this as mere propoganda, designed to elicit sympatetic response and a better public image, while masquarading our real motive: putting cheap, concealable, disposable, laser-guided heat-seeking cop-killing assault rifles into the hands of every two-year old in America!
It would never, ever occur to Fred_42 that we do these things because safety, education and training is in our original charter!
It would never occur to RTFirefly that we have only recently (last 25 years or so) become involved politically simply because we saw our rights beginning to be whittled away from us, one-by-one.
Firefly puts the cart in front of the horse, castigating us for interfering with the right and proper course of gun control: the elimination of every privately owned firearm in America.
One example, from January, 1998:
[quote]
A paid staff member of the Violence Policy Center recently appeared as a guest of a radio talk-show broadcast on WVLK, 590 on the AM dial, in Lexington, Kentucky.
A show called “Front Page,” hosted by Sue Wiley of WVLK, featured a debate between Susan Glick of the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C. and Craig Palmer, a volunteer life-member of the National Rifle Association, from Louisville, Kentucky.
The debate’s topic was the Violence Policy Center’s accusation that the NRA’s “Eddie Eagle” is nothing but the American firearms industry’s “Joe Camel,” designed not as a valuable element of a children’s gun-safety course, but as a lovable, cuddly lure to entice children to become gun owners and future NRA members.
A call-in guest expressed outrage at GLICK’s accusation, and triggered a revelation that should come as no surprise to gun owners. Here’s how it went. The caller is “Mark”.
WILEY: “Mark, good morning on your car phone. Mark, are you there?”
MARK: “Yeah.”
WILEY: “All right.”
MARK: “ Ah, Sue, I believe this lady is a hypocrite.”
WILEY: “Why?”
MARK: “Well, you got her on here, she’s trying to say that Eddie Eagle is subliminally trying to promote children to use guns, and all she’s trying to do is to protect the children. I don’t believe that for a moment. I believe her entire agenda is nothing but completely outlaw the use of guns by private citizens. And I will not sit back and rest and allow people to take away my constitutional right to own and possess a gun… There’s so many people trying to throw the children out there in the front lines to say, “this is all were trying to do,” and I believe it’s a hypocritical, shameful way of hiding behind children…”
GLICK: “Sir, we’re not hiding behind anything. We endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban.”
MARK: “Now you’re saying that’s what your ultimate goal is.”
GLICK: “That’s right, and we are absolutely vocal about it.”
Or this little gem:
Pete Shields, July 26, 1976,
57-58, in the New Yorker magazine.
At the time, Mr Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Shields is also the founder of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, but I was unable to locate any references to his current involvement with any gun-control organization.
We are routinely accused of the “Slippery-Slope” Fallacy in saying that registration inevitably leads to confiscation; yet we have ample precedent for our belief, and not just from totalitarian regimes of the past, but recently from Great Britian and Australia as well.
The hundred-thousand-or-so-Mom-march was organized and sponsored (allegedly) solely by Donna Dees-Thomases. Here are some facts abpout Mrs. Dees-Thomases:
Bottom Line: The-Not-Quite-A-Million-Mom-March was a slickly packaged, Clinton/Gore approved, HCI organized and Media funded publicity event utilizing emotional rhetoric and feel-good slogans tailored to the five second sound bite to promote an agenda: The Banning of Every Firearm In America From Private Possession.
But make no mistake: it was no farce.
If even one moderate fence-sitter was persuaded to join the ant-gun camp because of their actions, then it accomplished its goal, and diminished our ranks by one more possible convert to Reasoned, Ordered Liberty.
You anti-gunners are a pack of rabid, hate-filled fear mongers, lying with every word you utter when the damning truth would make you and your contemptible organizations evaporate like a bad dream come the morning light.
ExTank
“It’s enforcement, stupid!”
I survived the NRA’s 2000 Annual Conference
Charlotte, N.C.
Why not try though? Why severly limit yourself by saying “It’s impossible to know everything, so why even try?” Everybody should be educated about as many things as possible.
Very general statement with no examples at all. My self-education system hasn’t taught me much? How so? Because I know how to use a gun and I think other people should know what to do when around a gun?
So if you said again and again that other people can take all the gun handling lessons they want, why can’t children learn about them? Why do you want to condemn children to a life of ignorance and fear? If after their education they decide guns are not for them, great. THey just made an educated decision. A decision that way based on anylitical thinking and judgement that had nothing to do with “Well once this happened to somebody…” reasoning.
How do you know they did?
So, if 40 percent of American households have guns, wouldn’t it be a good idea to hedge one’s bets by educating children, especially if 23% are loaded?
Or would you rather children in 40% of American homes ignorantly wonder around, pick up a gun, and accidently kill somebody?
ExTank wrote:
They make heat-seeking bullets now? Darn it, how come I didn’t hear about this at our last Secret-NRA-Cabal-For-World-Domination meeting?
Don’t mince words, ExTank, tell us how you really feel. 
ExTank:
Whatever.
In which case, I’d say a regular classroom teacher can give that instruction quite well, thanks.
Uhhuh.
Sorry to take away your ‘right’ to buy armor-piercing bullets for handguns; the ‘right’ to buy guns whose metal content is low enough to evade metal detectors; the ‘right’ to buy a gun without a background check, and so forth.
I’d go on, but I’ve got to get back to my whittling. 
ExTank:
Whatever.
In which case, I’d say a regular classroom teacher can give that instruction quite well, thanks.
Uhhuh.
Sorry to take away your ‘right’ to buy armor-piercing bullets for handguns; the ‘right’ to buy guns whose metal content is low enough to evade metal detectors; the ‘right’ to buy a gun without a background check, and so forth.
I’d go on, but I’ve got to get back to my whittling.
Letter to My Anti-Gun Friends
by Angel Shamaya
with contributing editors
Reprinted from the free KeepAndBearArms.org Email Report
Inspired by This Document
Dear Anti-Gun People,
I am opening a dialogue with you to better comprehend your position through reviewing your responses to a few questions. After you’ve read my questions and the provided links, I’ll answer any questions you may have regarding my strong belief in the right to keep and bear arms, and I hope you will truthfully answer the questions I pose to you below:
Do you believe the government is always honest with the people?
A woman who is unarmed is easy prey for an armed rapist. But there are many places in America where a woman cannot legally carry a gun to protect herself from attack. Do you think it is better for a woman to be raped than to fend off a rapist in self-defense with a gun? If so, why? If not, then do you advise women to resist armed rapists with their bare hands?
Britain has effectively disarmed its citizens. Their own Olympic shooters had to ship guns out of the country or turn them in to be destroyed. But if more gun control decreases crime, why is Britain experiencing an epidemic of gun-related violence? (See http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/gun)
Washington, D.C. has a per capita murder rate of 69 per 100,000 with the strictest gun control laws in the country. Indianapolis, with much more gun freedom, only has 9 murders per 100,000 residents. If disarming people makes cities safer, how can this be?
There are tens of thousands of cases of people getting no response from the 911 system–including scores of cases where people were still wounded or killed after having dialed 911. If a criminal is already inside your house, garage, or car, is dialing 911 really the most effective way of immediately dealing with the situation?
(See http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-970713-124534.html)
Police also have no legal requirement to protect you when you call for help. People attacked by criminals and injured after calling police for help cannot sue in court and win. This places the responsibility of personal protection in the hands of each individual. Does it make sense that the individual be denied the same access to tools for self-protection that police enjoy? (See http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection and also http://dial911.itgo.com)
Every national gun licensing and registration in history has led to confiscation. Gun registration in America has already led to confiscation in New York and California. (See http://www.sierratimes.com/arjj020700.htm) If you support gun registration in America, would you please explain how having their guns registered helped the citizens in China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, or Uganda? Do you think gun registration was beneficial to the Jews in Germany, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, or the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung? (See http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm.)
Why are the media and the government working in unison to disarm America when the most in-depth scientific studies on the subject of private gun ownership shows that more guns in the hands of citizens REDUCES violent crime? (See http://www.reasonmag.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html) What agenda for the US do they have planned that requires disarming the citizens of our country?
Criminals get guns, knives, and bludgeons any time they wish, and they disobey whatever laws they wish–including laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why would you want to make law-abiding citizens easier prey by taking away their guns?
(See http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16/stinwenws02004.html?999)
We rarely see both sides of the gun debate issue on national television. Why is that? It has already been proven by the most in-depth scientific study on the subject of guns and crime that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.
The ACLU and most Americans think a door-to-door search for drugs is a gross violation of civil rights. Many gun banners would like to see door-to-door confiscation of guns. Are you willing to have Your Home searched for guns (or anything else) any time the government wishes to do so?
Every year Americans citizens legally kill 3-5 times as many criminals as are killed by all the law enforcement officials combined. Up to 2 1/2 million times a year, citizens use guns to legally thwart crime–usually when they are the intended victims. If citizens are disarmed, these intended victims will be defenseless against armed criminals. Are you saying that millions of Americans each year should have no right to stop criminals who are victimizing them? Would you prefer to give many more criminals the ability to succeed each year?
Today, many men and women have reason to believe that the Federal government is intent on disarming the American people as a means to significantly greater control–the way citizens in disarmed China, Germany, the Soviet Union and Cuba are controlled. If these people are right, does this concern you?
There are 360-450 citizens in America for every law enforcement officer. (600,000/750,000 to 270,000,000) Do you believe each law enforcement officer can protect 360-450 people from violent criminals?
When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners are presented as “extremists” in today’s media. American public servants surrounded by armed bodyguards and/or living in neighborhoods with private security are telling law-abiding citizens we cannot carry or even own (some cities/states) a gun–not even to protect ourselves and our families. Do you see the hypocrisy? Can you understand why tolerance pushed beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger? Can you understand why being told we cannot enjoy the same safety our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a politician’s life more important than your life? If so, why?
Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly proven to be biased against guns; it is not presenting both sides of the issue. (See http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm) On the other hand, http://www.citizensofamerica.org has a media program that presents the pro-gun side of the story. If you believe in “equality” regarding public property, should COA be given free media time to present their case? And just why IS the media so biased in the first place? (And why might the government be anti-gun?)
In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to purchase a gun–even if her life has been threatened. Why should law-abiding people in fear of their lives wait 10 days to get a gun when criminals have no waiting periods?
Criminals often kill people who’ve already turned over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her, she will be raped. Do you think the government has a right to require women to submit to rape? If so, why?
Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted with an armed rapist or murderer and leave our ourselves at their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how our society would revert to utter lawlessness if everyone agreed to simply submit to armed criminals?
Many anti-gun people use child gun-related accidents and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns. Seeing that more children drown every year than are killed by guns, do you support banning swimming pools?
Current federal law now limits the capacity of a gun’s magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3 hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm, would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?
Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more people die in cars every year than by guns–and no Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own cars. Because more people die every year in cars than by guns, do you support a ban on cars? There are also an alarming number of crimes committed under the influence of alcohol. Would you support a ban on alcohol considering it didn’t work the last time they tried it?
Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of gun-related injuries which took place in their cities. Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by guns, do you support these mayors in suing car manufacturers?
Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying guns for self-defense. These same cities make exceptions for people carrying money and jewels. Do you agree that money and jewels are more important to protect than people’s lives?
The National Guard is paid by the Federal government, occupies property leased to the Federal government, uses weapons owned by the Federal government, and punishes trespassers under Federal law. Do you truly believe the National Guard is a State agency?
The National Guard is also what is commonly called the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way of trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the Constitution was referring to the National Guard with the term “militia,” how can we account for the fact that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787–while the National Guard was created by an act of Congress in 1903?
The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal government) gunned down 81 innocent women and children and burned most of the evidence down to the ground in Waco and have withheld evidence which would (and still may) convict them of wrongdoing. They murdered Randy Weaver’s wife. The police and other state agencies shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in California. Why would you trust these government agencies with fully automatic weapons but not trust a law-abiding individual with a simple self-defense handgun?
The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented as “gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and killers” in the communications media. Is it possible they are depicted this way to sway public opinion toward disliking guns? If so, why would the media and the anti-gun politicians do that? How is this different from the way the news organs of Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba propagandized against the segments of their societies that opposed complete state control?
Many documented statements by anti-gun groups claim that the Second Amendment refers to the power of the States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of the Constitution, we find the following: “the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble,” the “right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration here of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the PEOPLE,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the PEOPLE.” Do you honestly believe “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” refers to the States but excludes Individuals?
Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most portable, easiest-to-use, and most effective means of self-defense. This is why they are used by police officers. Denying people the right to use this tool leaves them defenseless against criminals on the street. Why do you advocate that law-abiding people not be allowed to protect themselves with the best means of self-defense available?
The Federal government and the United Nations (See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml) have been working in unison for years to systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even remotely possible that the government has something planned that so many Americans would be against that it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see that supporting their disarmament plans could be working against the American citizens committed to preserving freedom?
I do appreciate your thoughts on these matters and look forward to your reply. I am committed to answering every question you send me by giving each one careful attention and a thorough, intelligent reply as soon as possible. If you pose a question I cannot intelligently address, I will seek out an answer until I can.
Respectfully,
Angel Shamaya
http://www.keepandbeararms.org
Sorry for the double post…