"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms."

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 02, 1999

Answers

Yes, in the U.S. Citizens, et al, generally have the right - under reasonable circumstances. But hey, you folk in Australia: Is it true that you are forbidden (in at least one "district"), to use any form of weapon to protect yourself? And residents of England, how on earth _can_ you defend yourselves against capital assault? Could we please hear from other countries as well? Y2k problems will be universal in nature; How would those without firearms defend themselves against firebombs?

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), May 02, 1999.

BH - Thanks for the link!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 02, 1999.

BH- Downloading now as i takes a lot less to open a .pdf from my own disk. I expect there will be a lot of reading done in the Driver household soon.

Chuck

PS Arlin: Prithee doth thy published e-mail work?

c

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.

Is it just me, or is it all "Not yet transcribed"?

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 02, 1999.

We Australians can have guns, but they have to be registered. Criminals may not get guns.

Automatic weapons are outlawed in each state since a shooting in Tassie a few years ago (they already were outlawed in some states).

We're a democracy and we are free. Almost all Australians (and other people I know) think you Yanks are crazed about your guns. And we get a bit irritated when you Yanks think we live in some kind of dictatorship, just because not every bloke can walk around with a weapon.

But, the U.S. is not my country. If you want to kill yourselves, we Aussies say go to it. Just don't let the NRA get near our country or to New Zealand please. We have lots of school-age children here.

-- Bill Laster (blaster@perth.net), May 02, 1999.

It saddens me to see that that particular type idoiocy is not confined to the USA.

I am also not particularly amazed to see that it only took a week or two before the links evolved which would balme the deaths of the children on the NRA.

And we wonder why Western civilization is in the toilet.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), May 02, 1999.

That's just about the stupidest damned thing I've ever read. The NRA didn't kill any schoolchildren and it is not a danger to any of yours. You appear to be living in that wierd dreamland where criminals do not get and then use guns, "because that's against the law." Please- stay in the Land of Oz, where such nonsense is believed.

-- Robert Sturgeon (rsturgeon@calwest.net), May 02, 1999.

Unk: If you go back to the site, and hunt around a bit, you will find a .pdf version you can download, or you can e me and I'll foreward it to you. Besides, I have a few VERY OT questions on homebrewing, I really don't want to tie up Phil's bandwidth with.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.

Actually, I prefer to arm and keep bears, myself.

(Y'all had all of about 3 hours for that!)

C, who still has a sense of what he calls humor.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.

Thanks Chuck,

BTW, I'm no expert, but if ya wanna ask me sumthin' go head an do it. Just be sure to curse and swear alot so that it will get deleted, end of bandwidth waste ;)

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 02, 1999.

LEt's see....

U.S. and Canada, right next door, same basic media and culture.

U.S. in 1995, 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 inhabitants.

TOTAL Homicides in Canada, 1995: 588.

(sources: FBI, Statistics Canada)

Now, can anyone tell me the biggest, baddest difference? It ain't the Molson...

And of course, we could keep going with other industrial nations, but I don't want to embarrass you gun wackos...

#%$%&^%&&*%!!!

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Try this book Chuck, and anyone else who would like to try homebrewing, "The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing", ISBN 0-380-76366- 4

You may also may wish to check out this site

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Slightly Dubious, please compare like to like, i.e., rate per 100,000 to rate per 100,000, rather than rate to actual number. Please note the fourth para in the following thought-provoking article:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm62.html DOES GUN CONTROL REDUCE CRIME?

Pundits and editorialists equate the rate of gun-related deaths with the availability of firearms. However, internationally, rates of violent crime and suicide appear to be independent of how extensively a country controls guns.

Russia, Estonia, Mexico, Northern Ireland, Canada and Hungary all have high rates of homicide and/or suicide despite restrictive gun control laws, and low rates of suicide are found in relatively well-armed jurisdictions like Israel and New Zealand.

Gun control laws are uniform throughout the United Kingdom, but murder rates are not -- in 1989 the murder rate per 100,000 people was 0.6 in England and Wales, 3.3 in Scotland and 7 in Northern Ireland.

When Canadian provinces and adjoining U.S. states are compared, threefold-to-tenfold differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in consistently different rates of criminal homicide.

Perhaps the most powerful example that gun control does not equal crime control is the United States. Prior to the enactment of federal gun controls in 1968, guns could be bought virtually anywhere by any adult, but the national murder rate then was half what it is now.

In fact, evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners.

A study published by the University of Chicago found that crime rates are lower when civilians are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Murder rates in the District of Columbia and Chicago actually went up after each jurisdiction passed restrictive gun control laws.

Burglaries of occupied dwellings in the gun-free U.K. are much more frequent than in the United States.

It isn't even evident that gun control laws have reduced gun ownership in the United States. Despite more than 20,000 gun-control laws nationwide, firearms are present in about the same percentage of households today as in the 1960s.

Source: Daniel D. Polsby, "Firearms and Crime," Independent Policy Report, 1997, The Independent Institute, 134 Ninety-Eighth Avenue, Oakland, CA 94603, (510) 632-1366.

For an Independent Institute Summary go to

http://www.independent.org/polsbyipr.html

For full text of the University of Chicago study

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/%7Ellou/guns.html

And here's an interesting perspective--you'll have to go to the site to see the graphic chart (pun intended):

http://www.csdp.org/factbook/crime.htm

The chart at the right illustrates the homicide rate in the United States from 1900 to 1993. It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

Thanks OG. It is refreshing to see some sense aroung here. But then latley a lot of the good sense has you moniker attached.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), May 03, 1999.

You got that right Ol Git,

I have been a mostly lonely voice here, saying over and over that drug prohibition causes more harm than it solves. Gotta love the idiots who state so clearly that "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" yadda yadda yadda, and then turn around and support the "War on Drugs".

Nincompoops!

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Aorry Old Git...didn't know you were mathematically challenged or misinformend about the population of Canada (30,675,398, July 1998 est., CIA Factbook). Let's say that it was roughly 30 million in 1995... that's still only 1.96 homicides per 100,000 residents.

I checked the actual *murder* rate for the U.S. in 1995. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000 inhabitants. (Source again: FBI.) That's four times the murder rate in Canada.

As for the other lovely places you mentioned, let's tick off the exacerbating factors (and keep in mind that I haven't yet researched the actual murder rates there so don't know if you're right about them):

Russia,Estonia: former Soviet republics with corresponding turmoil;

Mexico: Third world economy next to richest country in world, with highest crime by far in border towns and MExico City, most polluted and largest city in world...also major drug trade)

Northern Ireland: sectarian violence, civil war

Canada: debunked above

Hungary: okay, you got me there

-SD-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

as for the province-adjoining-US-state-argument...90% of Canadian citizens live within 200 miles of the U.S. border. So that's a red herring if I ever saw one. And let's not forget some of the cities that are near the border...Detroit...Seattle...Chicago...NYC (not too far)...

But then I do agree with you on the alochol and drug prohibition connection. So it's good to see thatsome of the good sense that you generally display on this forum is still intact.

Guns kill, people. Let's not get rid of all of them or stop people from having them for hunting or -- within reason -- self-defense. But I think some of you ought to ponder the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia."

-sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

From the study OG cited:

"It isn't even evident that gun control laws have reduced gun ownership in the United States. Despite more than 20,000 gun-control laws nationwide, firearms are present in about the same percentage of households today as in the 1960s."

Uh, then what the hell is wrong with gun control? It obviously hasn't stopped law-abiding adults from having them...

-s-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

> But I think some of you ought to ponder the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia."

We have been pondering it long, hard, and loud for many, many years now and there are at minimum two views on the subject.

I prefer to go with the view of the framers of our Constitution.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), May 03, 1999.

Austrailian Bill Laster said above, "We're a democracy and we are free." Well, Mr. Laster, prior to 1933 America was a Republic and our people were free. Since then, we have inexorably fallen deeper and deeper into the hell known as democracy (read, mob rule) and have been steadly loosing our individual liberities ever since. I just hope our sad experience may be of some value to you.

-- Yan (no@no.no), May 03, 1999.

It means a lot to me that you two see some sense in that post. I admire your respective views, minds, perspectives and senses of humor more than most around here. I first got interested in the prohibition perspective some years ago when Wm. F. Buckley devoted a whole National Review to the subject of treating drugs like alcohol and cigarettes--i.e., legalizing them. You won't find much support from the helping and law enforcement professions, though, they'd be out of jobs in no time flat!

When you see penalties for selling drugs increase drastically and the result is juveniles recruited as drug dealers (because they get slaps on the wrist until they're 18), you realize that something went wrong. When you see taxes doubled on cigarettes and the result is a dramatic increase in the theft and bootlegging of cigarettes, you realize that something went wrong. Both these outcomes were predicted but nobody listened. When you tell a child it's not his fault he misbehaves--it's his parents, society, television, something in the water, whatever, it gives him permission to misbehave with impunity.

The last time I looked at statistics for out-of-wedlock births, this is what I found: nearly 8/10 for black women; nearly 3/10 for Hispanics; nearly 2/10 for whites. If all those people who protested the NRA in Denver this weekend would go and mentor at their local schools or be Big Brothers/Big Sisters, then they might do some good instead of relieving themselves in the wind.

I took an NRA course to learn how to protect myself. I have yet to shoot at anything living, and I won't, not unless my life is threatened. And if I DO kill anyone, it will be because I wanted to, not because the NRA or television or the Evil Human Resources Director made me do it. North Carolina may have some problems but the state legislature two or three years ago passed a law permitting a person to wound or kill anyone breaking into his/her house if he/she believes his/her life is endangered. Not a bad reason to move here!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

"I prefer to go with the view of the framers of our Constitution."

Which is...?

Oh, and by the way, since we're reverting to each and every more that GW, TJ, BEn F. and Co. lived by, glad to know I'll now be able to light up a doobie any time I feel like it, since Big Georgie Washington was one of the biggest hemp farmers and potheads since JErry Garcia (wait a minute..I've got thos ebackwards...gotta lay off this sinsemilla..."

-sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

INTERIOR MONOLOGUE:

[Nice punctuation, SD. That'll make 'em respect your opinion. Yeah, right. Slow down yer typing so people will grasp your incredible wit and you won't come off like a jackass. there ya go.]

-sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Slightly dubious, you asked what is the view of the framers, well, that is what the original link I posted is intended to convey, quite unambiguously. More of that will be transcribed and posted over time.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 03, 1999.

You wackos will LOVE this one...

Just came over the wires...

-SD-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

SD,

I am particularly fond of the entry in GW's diary wherein he laments arriving back at his plantation too late to "separate the males from the females". Any pothead, ex in this case, can tell you why he was upset.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Blue Himalayan Mountain Man, I look forward to reading that. I imagine it will be balanced and take in a wide range of views. I also imagine it will make a pretty forceful case...forceful enough to overturn 200 years of Supreme Court decisions...

-sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Deedah! Remind me to tell you about my neighbor sometime... the one who has a one bedroom apartment, but sleeps in the living room because the bedroom is used for, uh, the greenhouse effect... :)

Slightly Dubious the Inhaler

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Thanks for the link SD. Nice to know that Gary Bauer is still the same old jackass he always was.

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Actually, Deedah, he's now a jackass who's running for President, which makes him a much more dangerous jackass...puts him right up there with Dan Quail (sic, in his honor)... but he's still got a ways to go to catch Pat Buchanan... -sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Slightly Dube, yes as a matter of fact it IS balanced, the original includes statements, soon to be transcribed, of leading anti-gun organizations. BTW, Eliz Dole happens to be correct, you shouldn't use an AK-47 to defend your family, an AR-15 is greatly preferable.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 03, 1999.

"Slightly Dube"! I like that! As soon as I get off this dadgum computer, I'm going to be more than slightly dube...but I'd have to be completely cracked and smacked out, Himalayan Mountain Sage, to really believe that you'll post the parts of that report that side with the Supreme Court's view of the Second Amendment...

-sd-

-- Slightly Doobieous (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Blue,

Maybe that should read "Slightly Doobe"

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Slightly Dubious, may we keep this discussion courteous, rather than shrilly attacking my mathematical ability--no, I do NOT know the population of Canada, nor do I know the population of the capital city of this state.

Please note that I never suggested that the Canadian homicide rate is higher than the US. I merely pointed out that your comparing rates to actual numbers is inaccurate (and, incidentally, does not advance your case). Perhaps you would be interested in anotehr piece from the Vancouver, B.C.-based National Center for Policy Analysis:

Gun Control in Canada

Handguns are involved in only 2.3 percent of violent crime in Canada, and rifles and shotguns in only 2.8 percent. Canadians use firearms about three times as often in self-defense as in criminal violence. Yet the Canadian Parliament has introduced legislation that would prohibit and confiscate more than 50 percent of all handguns and require universal registration of all firearms.

Between 2.2 million and 3.4 million of Canada's 10 million households have firearms. There are about 5 million rifles and shotguns and 1 million handguns. Handguns have been registered since 1934.

Universal registration is intended to speed police investigations, and taking handguns away from civilians would supposedly lower the homicide and firearms-related crime rates. But firearms are involved in such a small percentage of violent crimes that the crime rate would not be reduced significantly if all firearms disappeared overnight.

Canada has a low homicide rate  about 2 per 100,000 compared to 9 per 100,000 for the United States - and firearms are involved in less than a third of them. Between 1961 and 1990, an average 130 homicides were committed each year with handguns, of which fewer than four per year were known to be registered. Firearms are used in robberies more often than in any other violent crime and, even so, they are used less than 30 percent of the time.

It is common to contrast the strict firearms legislation in Canada with the firearms laws in the United States and attribute the much lower homicide rate in Canada to this difference. However, Canada had a lower homicide rate before the introduction of the present firearms legislation. Further, not all Canadian provinces have lower homicide rates than the adjacent American states, even though all provinces have the same firearms laws.

While showing the impact of firearms legislation on violent crime may be difficult, the recent experience of Great Britain demonstrates how such legislation affects law-abiding firearms owners.

Since the enactment of extremely restrictive gun controls in 1988, the number of legal gun owners has dropped by almost 19 percent. During the same period, the rate of robbery with a firearm has more than doubled, and the overall violent crime rate has increased by 29 percent.

Implementing Canada's proposed comprehensive firearms registration would cost between $500 million and $1 billion (Canadian). And the compliance rate, particularly with respect to people turning in their handguns, might be low. In Australia, more than 40 percent of firearms have not been registered even after decades of requiring that they be.

Source: Gary Mauser, "Gun Control Is Not Crime Control," Fraser Forum Supplement, 1995, The Fraser Institute, 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E3M1, (604) 688-0221.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

slightly -

you've missed several critical points in your arguments for gun control.

Let's start with this one: I challenge you to show from the historical record any country with as many diverse subcultures as the United States which did not inevitably experience a great deal of violent conflict among it's citizens. You must not use monocultural or primarily monocultural countries (hint: as far as I can see you haven't cited a true multicultural society in any of your responses so far).

2. After you have answered the above, you will still need to show direct causal linkage between firearms and violent behavior. You have so far completely failed to document any scientific research which would support you assumptions in this regard.

let's start with those two, if you're up to that level of debate.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 03, 1999.

Git: sorry about the math insult. As I said, you usually show plenty of sense. I'll chalk up your gun mania to an overcompensation for emigrating to the US from your fine country. Or maybe you've been down there in Caro-li-na too long... I'm a Southerner too, and I know how the machismo can rub off...

But I fail to see how, now that you *do* know the population of Canada and now that we *both* know that Canada has one-fourth the population of the United States, you wouldn't understand my point.

It's too late for me to look at the study you posted, but I promise I will tomorrow...

Arlin: another man I respect. But as for your statement:

"I challenge you to show from the historical record any country with as many diverse subcultures as the United States which did not inevitably experience a great deal of violent conflict among it's citizens. You must not use monocultural or primarily monocultural countries (hint: as far as I can see you haven't cited a true multicultural society in any of your responses so far)."

Uh...what? Canada isn't multicultural? Have you been to Toronto or Vancouver lately? Please don't make me look up the Toronto murder rate and compare it to Detroit, because I don't want to embarrass you too badly at this late hour...as for the other countries cited, Git cited them, not me...

"After you have answered the above, you will still need to show direct causal linkage between firearms and violent behavior. You have so far completely failed to document any scientific research which would support you assumptions in this regard."

First of all, I don't *need* to do anything. I possess common sense. Second of all, the scientific arguments point in many different directions. This ultimately is not going to come down to anything that can be conclusively, causally proven one way or another.

Let me clarify one more thing, then it's bedtime for bonzo: I am not arguing that guns are solely responsible for the ills of this society. I am not suggesting for a minute that more gun control would have stopped the Columbine massacre. These problems are extremely complex.

What I am saying is that there are some things that are just plain common sense. Guns should be controlled. That's not to say outlawed, or confiscated... controlled. Registered. BAckground checks. A waiting period. (I remember a comedian who said, "Anyone who needs a gun and needs it RIGHT NOW...NEEDS a waiting period.")

Okay, flame away...it'll ping against the silicon void until tomorrow, because I'm gettin' sleepy and you Davy Crockett wannabes are making me grouchy... -mdte-

-- More Dubious Than Ever (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

by the silence, I can only imagine the doctoral theses Git and Arlin are cooking up... paging Charlton Heston...by the way, Git, hope you heard the part where I said I agreed with you about the drug and alcohol thing, because ah do...

-mdte-

-- More Dubious Than Ever (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

slightly -

Canada doesn't have 20 percent of the cultural diversity of the U.S. in any meaningful numbers. You also need to look at Canada from the segregation perspective - Quebec exists because it allows the French Candians to live a segregated lifestyle apart from the rest of Canada. Indeed the Canadian government just formed an entirely new province for their Native American populace...oh they don't call it segregation, of course, and it's entirely voluntary, of course, but that's not a multicultural society any more than the deep south in the 1930's was a multicultural society....

Common sense? well personally I never trust the judgement of someone on mind altering substances - that's just common sense after all. Beyond that, common sense based on practical experience and study of the historical record tells me that firearms registration has in every historical case led to eventual further restrictions and in many cases confiscation of firearms - UK and Australia being recent cases in point. Common sense tells me that a society which is not capable of defending itself against the potential oppression of a central government is a society of ready-made slaves deluding themselves into thinking they are free. Common sense tells me to resist any such efforts whereever they occur.

Arlin

[who actually happens to think Chuck Heston is just a tad soft in some areas on the gun issue, and suggests that some folks might want to check out http://www.gunowners.org/

which tends to be a bit more definative on these issues.]

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 03, 1999.

OG,

Last night you were on the other side of the US UK/ violent crime debate. Last night when I said the UK had as high or higher violent crime rate as The US ( 1990 data ) you said it wasn't so. Now that the UK has put in tougher laws it seems you are saying it is so,,,, getting a little whiplash of the brain here.

I've always been a rational anarchist so I dont believe in most laws ( altho I obey most,,, it's easyer that way and don't crimp my beliefs much )

If every law abideing citezen carried, the next drive-by shooting would be the last,,, who needs a motorized collender?

If drugs were leagel and you could support your habit for $5.00 a day at the local drug store, 80 to 90% of crimes would be avoided,,, a heroin junkey if maintained is a productive member of society for 5 to 10 years,,, then they die,,, it's their choice.

Think of the money we would save and lives we would save if we just got off this Gov. control kick. Alot of people will bring up the loss in production because of drugs ( like I'm some kinda slave ) The shut down of prisons, law enfourcement, and Fed Gov.org messing with our lives would more than make up for it.,,, Think of tax dollars saved and the taxes that could be raised from a leagel product.

The only bright side of Y2k I can see is the death of the illusion of big Gov. They can't help you and I think all will see it in graphic detail,,,soon.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 03, 1999.

Damnit, Arlin, I'm trying to get out and you keep pulling me back in! :) First of all, that was a cheap shot regarding the mind- altering substances bit... first of all, I'm not stoned now and rarely am... secondly, even if I was, what does that have to do with the veracity -- or lack thereof -- of my statements? Ad hominem nonflattery will get you nowhere.

Secondly, your semicoherent quasi-segregationist statements notwithstanding (and you have the rationale for the new province and Quebec's existence quite wrong...I have family in Quebec and they would laugh their ass off at your theory, and they're not even French), I challenge you again to look at the demographics of Toronto and Vancouver, two eminently multicultural cities (Toronto arguably more so than any American city except New York and Los Angeles), and then compare their crime rates. This part of the debate is ridiculous and is making you look ridiculous, in my opinion. Again, I suggest you go to Canada sometime and tell me it's not multicultural. As to whether it's more or less so than the U.S., I posit that it is roughly the same in proportion to its overall population, especially in urban areas.

As to the rest, we are at a philosophical impasse. By the way, maybe it will make you feel better that I'm not opposed to militias...

-mdte-

-- More Dubious Than Ever (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Shucks, CT, since you put it that way, maybe guns aren't such a bad idea after all...if we're gonna be free, let's go the whole nine or not at all...

-nsdn-

-- Not So Dubious Now! (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Dubious - my position on guns comes mainly from reporting on crime for a newspaper and TV station and from working in volunteer crime-prevention programs for about ten years. It also comes from living in occasionally-murder-capital-of-the-US New Orleans for 13 years and knowing two friends and three acquaintances were murdered during armed robberies and burglaries. I once grabbed up a 16oz hammer and chased after a man trying to break into my house, and I assure you I would have harmed him if I'd caught him. If I'd had a gun, I would have. Funny, my youngster and I had no problems for the additional year we lived in that low-income neighborhood. Hence, my support for gun ownership comes not from a "mania," but rather from several decades of experience, research and observation.

"I'm a Southerner too, and I know how the machismo can rub off..." Being a Ms. I have a distinct aversion to machismo, but I do not have an aversion to sensible and prudent protection of one's property and person. The neighbor with whom I took the NRA class is a lovely 77-year old lady of southern charm and gentility who is fed up to the teeth with hearing her friends talk about their muggings and home invasions. Her daughter, a school teacher, was also with us.

I didn't disagree with your point, which I think was that the US is, generally speaking, more violent than Canada. What I do disagree with is that it's due to Canadians owning fewer guns. The Rwandans, for instance, probably have fewer firearms per 100,000 than Canadians, yet I suspect their murder rate is much higher. Machetes can be VERY efficient. So can poison gas.

If you investigate you'll find that, virtually without exception, police chiefs can point to statistics which show their high violent crime rate is due to drug activity--fights over turf, fights over payment, and so on. In Durham, NC, fully half of the murders are due to drug-related activity. The next highest group is caused by domestic violence--probably a lot to do with the machismo you mentioned.

By the way, I did volunteer counseling for a battered women's program, also for Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Vietnamese refugees, and several other victim-type groups, as well as working in some War on Poverty programs. I'm curious, Dubious, have you done any volunteer work to help those in trouble and attempt to divert them from criminal activity?

I'm reminded of a time when I was at a shopping center, assisting in a bake sale to help an animal shelter. A woman came up to me and chided, "I can't believe you're out here working for ANIMALS! Why don't you go and help some children?" I replied, "You know, that's something I've been thinking about--I have some free time. Would you tell me about the one you work with, give me a phone number, and I'll contact them to see if they need help?" She spluttered and left.

"What I am saying is that there are some things that are just plain common sense. Guns should be controlled." But they ARE controlled, Dubious. Look at DC, toughest laws in the nation, one of the worst crime rates. The laws don't work, that is, they DO work but only against law-abiding citizens. And when you keep referring to people like me as "wackos" and "Davy Crockett wannabes," then it suggests you think we're out of line for supporting gun ownership. I'm certainly not for unfettered gun ownership, but more control will serve no purpose--it hasn't and it won't. I know lots of people will disagree with me, but I happen to think that easier access to birth control would help solve a lot of the problems--I raised a child by myself after my first husband took off; it is NOT easy. Flames accepted from single or divorced mothers only!

I'm operating on late hours and sinus stuff and I can't understand what I'm writing any more, so I think I'd better go and put my head on my pillow. (Secure in the knowledge that if anyone breaks in, either Sweetie or I can blow the sucker away, with the shotgun we've got stashed in a secret compartment I built into the waterbed frame!)

-- Armed Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

CT, as I recall, I said the violent crime rate by itself is higher in Britain than in the US. But when you factor in the separate categories of murder, rape and, I believe, armed robhery, then the violent crime rate is lower in the UK. The confusion arises in the official methods of reporting. Also, I should add that the numbers for England and Wales are separate from Scotland and also N. Ireland. Some reports add them together, some don't. Unfortunately, I have a very old and very slow computer with some hard-drive problems (sounds like me!) so it takes me a while to research on the Web. Used to be that the violent crime rate (excluding murder, rape, AR) was 18 times higher in the US than in the UK. The murder rate was 10 times higher. I believe the latter figure is still about the same but other categories of violent crime have risen.

And so to bed.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

"I'm certainly not for unfettered gun ownership, but more control will serve no purpose--it hasn't and it won't."

How is it that a waiting period would serve no purpose? Look, I am not sure we disagree that much in reality. I am all for people being able to have guns, but I am reminded of the figures on homicides and handguns, on gun accidents in the house (yes, I know, the NRA promotes responsibel gun ownership, blah blah blah)...

But then I am also reminded that I am 6'3" and know how to carry myself. Not everyone is so lucky. Aaaagh, it's 3 15 AM and I'm starting to be diplomatic... look Git, you're a smart bird and I agree with you 90% of the time... let's leave it at that for the evening (yes, I do generally post under my real name...can't do that on this one for reasons I can't divulge...if I told you, I'd have to kill you with my unlicensed handgun...okay, bad joke...passing out now...)...

-doobie-

-- Slightly Dubious, Extremely Tired (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

Fact #1-- The death rate by firearms of children under the age of 15 is 1,100% higher for children in the U.S.A than the rate of all other 25 industrial nations - combined.

Fact#2 -- For every U.S. shooting in self defense, there are:

4 unintentional shootings

7 criminal assaults or homicides

11 attempted or completed suicides

Fact#3-- Shooting deaths by country:

(#6)Britain - 277

(#5)Spain - 396

(#4)Australia - 536

(#3)Canada - 1,189

(#2)Germany - 1,197

(#1)U.S.A. - 35,563

Fact #4 -- Every 18 months, more Americans are killed by other Americans using firearms than all of the Americans listed on the Vietnam War Memorial.

-------------------------------------------

Comment -- You can bury the people, but you can't bury the facts.

Don't you feel a twinge of embarrassment by these numbers? This is how many cultures view America. Can you understand why many countries resist the "American Way" of doing things? Those living in America have become numb to it. The same Hollywood movies that are blamed for American violence are seen overseas. What's the difference?

Some argue that America has a gun problem. Others argue that America has a culture problem. Still others that America has a gun- culture problem. Some Americans don't even see a problem...but the numbers are still there.

I expect the 'rebuttal' posts will probably start out: "Sure, I'm not proud of those numbers, but...yada yada yada..." Just remember, everyday you "yada yada" to keep the status quo (be it cultural or gun), another 100 Americans will perish from pieces of lead ripping through their heads and bodies.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 03, 1999.

NSDN,

Glad you see it my way,,, wouldn't it be nice if everybody minded their own biz?,,, people didn't have to worry about some busy-body trying to run your life? Not paying 50%+ of their hard earned bucks so some mega-nut can prove he has bigger balls than the next asocial mega-nut?

If you look into the Gun culture of the wild west you will find less violence and a more polite society than we have now. I lived in a Big city once ( SAC. CA. ) I've seen machien gunned apartments, running gun battles down the streets in cars and I've thwarted a forced break-in of my apartment with the racking of a 12 ga.,,, been there, done that.

God made man in his own image ( free ),, Guns made man/woman equal ( more freedom ),,,the mega-nuts want to change that.,,,can you say oppresion?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 03, 1999.

Finally, a site I can send people who feel that the confiscation of all firearms is a reasonable response to what happened in Littleton Colorado. Both sides made responsible, easy to understand statements, and being a gun owner myself, the idea of handing over my firearms, is tatamount to only criminals being in persuit of happiness in the U.S. I vote we keep the Second Ammendment right where it is.

-- Annie Oakley (AnzTrinket@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

A prediction - Charlton Heston is a smoking gun, a turncoat if you will.

He will cause untold damage to the NRA and gun advocates.

Before the end of this year.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.

Oh, Annie, you just hush up now. No one said guns should be confiscated. Controlled is not confiscated. Take another look at PNG's figures (God bless you, my Nippon brother, even if you did beat up on me on another thread) and talk to me when your ears stop ringing from the recoil....

Doobie

-- Dubiously Slight (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

PNG,

Would you like to debate the number of people killed world wide in the last 100 years by Gov.org that had a disarmed pop.org compared to the number of people killed by Gov.org and a well armed pop.org?

I didn't think so,

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 03, 1999.

Dubiously Slight -- I beat you up? At least I didn't shoot you... I usually don't 'beat people up' here.

-------------------------

CT -- You're right. I could not possibly debate with a self-proclaimed "rational anarchist."

"I've always been a rational anarchist so I dont believe in most laws ( altho I obey most,,, it's easyer that way and don't crimp my beliefs much)" [sic]

Debates have rules and I doubt that you could abide by those rules.

P.S. It has nothing to do with your language skills. I understand how difficult it can be to learn a second or third language. Good luck in your studies.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 03, 1999.

Arlin wrote>

Canada doesn't have 20 percent of the cultural diversity of the U.S. in any meaningful numbers.

>>>>>> We call Vancouver, Hongcouver >>>>>>

You also need to look at Canada from the segregation perspective - Quebec exists because it allows the French Candians to live a segregated lifestyle apart from the rest of Canada.

>>>>>>>>>

No we segregate Americans, Quebec folks can still sing and party in Canada. (So can US folk)

>>>>>>>>>

Indeed the Canadian government just formed an entirely new province for their Native American populace...oh they don't call it segregation, of course, and it's entirely voluntary, of course, but that's not a multicultural society any more than the deep south in the 1930's was a multicultural society....

Arlin

I have lived up there NWT and the Inuit are so differant you would not want to touch that. Plus the fact that 16,000 people got the equivilent of several of your states would not make a differance eh? Oh and they love guns. Northerners are born with guns in their hands. The Inuit often live amoung polar bears which have the least friendly disposition of any animal on the face of the earth. Not like a life in big city USofA.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Thats why you bear arms (BAAAHHHAAHAWWWAHHHHHAAAAA)

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Not all Aussies think you Yanks are gun nuts... but we do think there is a tendancy to pick up a weapon instead of using fists. (Yes, I know you can get killed if the other guy is armed.) As for guns here, handguns have ALWAYS been tightly controlled -- i.e. gun club members only unless you are in the police or a licensed security guard. Twenty years ago it was not uncommon for some bank tellers to have a revolver under the counter, but that isn't needed now with pop-up screens and armoured glas etc. But what our leaders did do more than a year ago was to basically disarm the whole population. All semi- auto rifles and shotguns were made illegal and licensed owners had to hand them in; even pump shotguns are illegal. Not even security guards can have them. And yes, we are NOT allowed to shoot in self defence, the cops and politicians keep repeating it. Ah well, we'll have to boomerang 'em!

-- David Harvey (vk2dmh@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

And this is basically Arlin's point:

But what our leaders did do more than a year ago was to basically disarm the whole population. All semi- auto rifles and shotguns were made illegal and licensed owners had to hand them in; even pump shotguns are illegal. Not even security guards can have them.

the only way this was done was to have the owners registered.

In this country, referring to the link in the original post, this would be in contravention of the most quickly passed and easily enacted of the original 10 Ammendments to the Constitution.

Chuck, who didn't used to be a gun nut, but who is being forced into that position by groups who want to undermine the original basis for his republic's government.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 03, 1999.

i expect i'll get flamed on this one, but IMO 'gun control' is only supported by fools and evil.

i haad a taste of this at my bank, where, when i enquired about their policy on guns i was informed that it's against bank rules to carry a gun in the bank. when i asked them if that meant, in order to be their customer i had to give up my right to defend myself, the reply was to the effect that 'the employees feel safer this way.'

apparently the fools implementing this policy believe that someone intending to rob the bank would a) inquire into their policy, since it's not posted, and b) be dissuaded from robbing the bank since they weren't allowed to bring their gun inside.

these are the people i'm supposed to trust to bring my money safely through y2k?

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

violence has it's own subtle logic that until expierienced,is often not grasped.firearms make that logic less one sided than a large/strong/skilled person pounding a small/weak/unskilled person.the great equalizer,indeed.

-- zoobie (zoobie@zoob.zab), May 03, 1999.

CT and Dubious--got some info for each of you, Dubious first.

I never said I was against a waiting period. I said that control doesn't work--DC is usually held up as an example, I'd add Northern Ireland too. Instead of wasting time on campaigns for control, people would do more good mentoring in schools or something similar. I would have done some research on waiting periods vs. crime rates on this crotchety old machine but I was busy sorting out the UK vs. US stats question for CT.

CT, I apologize for the confusion. I knew there was something skewiff when I went to bed last night but was too spacey to figure it out. My subconscious must have been grinding on it, though, because I was thinking about it as soon as I achieved compos mentis this morning. It's been an illuminating little wade through spin and skewed statistics and should be borne in mind evey time we look at a new report on Y2K, pro OR con.

Every two years, a British Crime Survey is compiled. Fifteen thousand households are surveyed for information. In the process unreported crimes are unearthed, as well as those that have been reported. (Note: there are two sources of statistics, police and BCS, the latter numbers being higher by a factor of four, according to the report below.) From what I can gather, the US Dept. of Justice did a comparison between the British BCS and US Uniform Crime Statistics for 1996, as explained in the following Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000154642417163&rtmo=gZfnlYZu&atmo =99999999&pg=/et/98/10/12/ncrim12.html

ISSUE 1235, Monday 12 October 1998

English crime rates set to 'overtake America', By Philip Johnston

EVIDENCE has emerged of how rates for some major crimes have become much higher in England and Wales than in the United States.

On the eve of the publication of annual crime figures tomorrow, a study by the United States Department of Justice shows that the rate for burglaries in England and Wales in 1995 was nearly double that in America - a reverse of the picture in 1981. Robbery rates were 1.4 times higher here than in the United States and those for assaults and car theft were also greater - and the gap is widening.

. . . The major exception to the pattern remains the murder rate, which is nearly six times higher in the United States, although here, too, the difference has narrowed since 1981, when it was nine times higher. Firearms were used in 68 per cent of American murders but in only seven per cent on this side of the Atlantic.

Rapes are falling in the United States but are still three times higher than in England and Wales, where violent assaults and sex crimes are rising. In 1981, the number in the United States was 17 times greater.

Prof Jock Young, from Middlesex University, said that in terms of violence the United States was incomparable to Britain. He said: "The homicide rate for young men in America is 52 times that in this country and homicide is really the only crime figure which can be accurate because you have to have a body." A key finding that the crime rate may be linked to punishment comes as the British Government is seeking to encourage courts to send fewer criminals to prison and to use community-based alternatives.

. . . Patrick Langan, one of the report's authors and an official at the Bureau of Statistics in Washington, said: "There is an inverse relationship. With rising punitiveness in the United States, crime rates are falling. In England, there is less punitiveness and crime rates are rising."

The study said: "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than in England and Wales."

Tomorrow's annual crime figures for England and Wales are expected to show a big rise - but the increase will be caused by a statistical blip rather than a new wave of offending. Changes in police record keeping - including an end to the practice of counting a string of offences committed by a single offender as one crime - could see a 20 per cent jump on last year. In the year to June 1997, 4.8 million crimes were recorded - the first time since 1989 that the total had fallen below five million. The new recording system, however, could add another one million crimes to the tally.

Even the new system is likely to underplay the true levels of crime, which are more accurately reflected in the British Crime Survey, also to be published tomorrow. This asks householders to give details of their experiences over the past year and consistently shows a rate about four times greater than the official figures. Norman Brennan, National Director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said the Government should no longer be allowed to "get away" with being soft on crime. He said: "I hope these figures will shock the British public into realising very little is being achieved in our battle against crime." (END OF ARTICLE)

Consternation! Britain set to overtake the US in crime? What IS the world coming to! But two days later--surprise, surprise!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000154642417163&rtmo=gZfnlYZu&atmo =99999999&pg=/et/98/10/14/ncrim14.html

ISSUE 1237, Wednesday 14 October 1998

Crime rate shows biggest fall since Fifties, By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor

CRIME in England and Wales is showing its biggest long-term fall since the Fifties, with burglaries and car thefts in significant decline, according to figures published yesterday.

However, there were mixed signals about trends in violence. Police recorded yet another rise in assaults and sex offences, while a larger Home Office survey pointed to a decrease.

Only days after an American study had shown how rates there had fallen markedly over the past 15 years, officials said the latest statistics were "encouraging" evidence that the tide was also turning in Britain.

The British Crime Survey - a biennial study that interviews more than 15,000 householders - showed its first drop in crime since it was initiated in 1981. However, the number of crimes counted by the survey, which includes offences not reported to the police or not recorded, was still 50 per cent higher than in 1981. It estimated that there were 16.5 million crimes against adults in 1997.

Separate figures showing the number of crimes recorded by police last year also show a decline across most areas except violence. There were 4.5 million recorded crimes in the 12 months to March this year, a fall of almost eight per cent and the fifth successive annual decline. Nine of every 10 offences were against property.

Perversely, the police figures showed an increase in crimes of violence whereas the BCS showed a fall, a discrepancy attributed to more stringent record-keeping.

Christopher Nuttall, the Home Office director of statistics, said police were recording more assaults and taking offences such as domestic violence more seriously. Twenty years ago, the police hardly recorded crimes of domestic violence but they now make up 20 per cent of the figures on assault. Mr Nuttall said: "We may not be more violent but more crimes are getting recorded."

According to the BCS, there was a 14 per cent fall in overall crime between 1995 and 1997. Burglary fell by seven per cent, violence by 17 per cent and car thefts by 25 per cent. The fall in burglary has coincided with greater security in homes. The number of attempted burglaries was unchanged, suggesting criminals are finding it more difficult to carry out their crimes.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, welcomed the latest figures, especially the BCS recorded fall "which is the best estimate we have of total crime and is also showing its first significant fall for many years". But he added: "That said, crime as a whole is much too high and there are no grounds for complacency."

. . . Peter Gammon, the chairman of the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales said: "We are starting to see the dividends of adopting a tough stance against the criminal. Now is not the time to sit back and relax policing and sentencing policies. We should see more prison sentences for acts of violence, even those where the assault is relatively minor."

However, Paul Cavadino, the principal officer of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, said there was little evidence to support the "prison works" philosophy. He said: "The fall is a result of effective preventive initiatives involving the police, local authorities, car manufacturers and other agencies working together to cut crime. Also, the fall in unemployment over the period was almost certainly a contributory factor as property crimes increase more sharply in times of recession." (END OF ARTICLE)

The more startling headline that Britain has become more crime-ridden than the US has, apparently, stuck in people's minds.

Funny, isn't it, how people remember the Y2K articles about "nuts" and "gun-toting survivalists" rather than anything about ordinary people simply acting prudently. I have to ask myself, why did the US Bureau of Justice release those numbers the day before the new figures were due out. Did they really screw up? Did they have any inkling that the new numbers were going to show a drop but wanted to get their study out because they spent all that money on it? Or did they want the American public to retain the impression that Britain ain't so safe these days, either,(sigh) crime is everywhere, don't blame us. The answer doesn't relly matter at this point--what matters is that the perception that Britain is more crime-prone than the US is inaccurate. (Or is it? Who the hell knows?)

Lies, damned lies and statistics. . .

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 03, 1999.

PNG,

Granted that when used for their conceived purpose (firing a high speed projectile) guns can kill people.

Consider that:

When used for their conceived purpose (getting from point A to point B) cars killed 42,000 people in 1997.

I hear no outcry to bannish cars, even ones capable of insanely high speeds. I know, apples and oranges. But consider also the huge amount of those shooting deaths that are solely the result of our nations policy of drug prohibition. Law enforcement admits that, to quote Old Git:

"If you investigate you'll find that, virtually without exception, police chiefs can point to statistics which show their high violent crime rate is due to drug activity--fights over turf, fights over payment, and so on. In Durham, NC, fully half of the murders are due to drug-related activity. The next highest group is caused by domestic violence--probably a lot to do with the machismo you mentioned."

I suspect that in a majority of those aforementioned domestic violence cases, much if not most of the bloodshed would be related to alcohol. Perhaps we should outlaw alcohol products too? Right along with the cars and guns? Yeah, that's it! Then cigarettes I suppose, then Big Macs, and Macaroni and Cheese. (It's the cheesy-ist)

One last thought, I have to laugh at David's comment about Aussie common sense

"And yes, we are NOT allowed to shoot in self defence, the cops and politicians keep repeating it."

So what is the official government position on defending one's self? Roll over and stick your ass in the air?

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Here's a statistic that the apologists for death always hate...

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

God Bless America!

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 03, 1999.

Ya know Pro,

When you first came on board I gave you the benefit of doubt. Here's a guy with an opposing view, what's he got to say. I listened.

Well, the more you say the less I am impressed. Short shots to stir up the nest, but nothing worth remembering.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

you don't need to be macho to shoot a no good cheating spouse.wish I'd used a knife,more time to enjoy it.

-- convict#3345323 (noregrets@prison.con), May 03, 1999.

And probably eight or nine thousand of those people didn't have a gun with which to defend themselves because of either ignorance or gun control laws. The same gun control laws which leave criminals armed and law abiding citizens defenseless. Over 200 million guns folks, some estimates I've seen this week on NBC go as high as 250 million. How many innocent people will be killed over the next two or three hundred years it takes to round up all those guns? Any thought of outlawing guns in this country is ludicrous at best and downright stupidity at worst. We have become a nation of criminals and predators, and the only thing holding that criminal element in partial check is an armed population, not the police. Here in little Longview Tx. Police cars will not enter the south side of the city unless they do it En Masse. Isolated police cars are routinely destroyed by drunken mobs, and several times officers have been dragged from those cars and had to be rescued by the entire police department. I've seen the future, and it aint pretty.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 03, 1999.

PNG, you make a good point. It is an insoluable problem, because gun control doesn't eliminate 'em, it just means the State (put aside criminals for the moment) has a monopoly on 'em. I'm not sure whether the State can ever turn bad, guess I'd have to ask holocaust survivors, Tibetans, Kosovans, Armenians, Ukranians, East Timorese, Chechens, Mayan Indians, Cambodians, ...

BTW, for better or worse, EVERYBODY'S PACKIN' FOR Y2K

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 03, 1999.

Don't need guns........

Try using a boomerang with a few ghosts attached to it....

Of course, if you miss your target, it will come back to haunt you.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), May 03, 1999.

Yes, Unc...er, Mr. Deedah: I agree that far too many people are killed in traffic accidents. Maybe it's time to look into that as well...

Don't you have to take driver training to get a license? Don't you have to have your photo taken and your ID verified? Don't you have to take a driving proficiency test? Don't you have to be mentally competent to drive? Buying a handgun is easier than getting a driver's license. I'm a pain aren't I? Speaking of pain, how's your hair, Unc..er Mr. Deedah?

The rest is not meant for you, it's just a general statement...

If you want to keep the handguns, then keep the handguns. Do something about the cultural instead, so you won't need the handguns. I did say one or the other... The numbers are insane. It is embarrassing.

Everyone knows the constitutional basis was to keep an aristocracy at bay and the government fearful of the will of the people. The framers also had ideals and values. The framers would weep in despair today at the sight of the nation they created. It's disgraceful and cannot be defended by people spouting constitutional privilege who do not return some measure of responsibility to their nation and their community.

If Americans are afraid of tyranny, why don't more of them vote?

If all the guns are to protect the people from the government, why are the "people" using them to kill other "people?"

The framers were not wild-eyed, armed-to-the-teeth anarchists. They created a system. They created an orderly system that afforded individuals the right of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Over 35,000 people per year lose their lives, liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Are their rights subserviant to the right to bear arms? How do you know it wasn't so hot in Philadelphia and the style of dress so stifling, that they didn't mean to say "bare arms?" [It's a joke...back away from the keyboard]

They created a balanced system that required the involvement of people to maintain the system. If you don't vote, you have no right to the privileges of the system. If you don't contribute to the community, you have no right to benefits from the community.

The people who gave their lives for the country (in real circumstances that threatened the republic) deserve better than to have the surviving members of the nation slaughter each other with firearms. Over 35,000 human lives per year is obscene. Not counting the disfigured, disabled and distraught families of the victims. It's a disgrace and America has no moral authority to tell any other country or culture how to run their affairs. How dare Americans think they have any superiority over any other nation or people. The power of a culture is inversely proportional to the murder rate. America is morally powerless.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 03, 1999.

slightly - I'm sorry I should have been more specific - yes Canada has a few integrated cities, but they have nothing equivalent to Southern California or the Northeast urban corridor (Boston to DC) - we have entire multicultural regions...not just cities. Now compared to that, dumping all of the french speakers in one province seems just a bit obvious, don't you think? ah but we'll let that one pass.

Brian - wouldn't that be bearing antibear arms? [have you guys got that tee shirt up there that shows a polar bear holding a thompson submachinegun with the caption "preserve your right to keep and arm bears"?]

Chuck - you are exactly correct in your analysis of my comment.

PNG - I have no problem whatsoever with that statistic, when one also takes into account the fact that a firearm is used defensively by a civilian every 15 seconds in this country, and that roughly 89 percent of those confrontations result in no shots fired. We live in a fractuous and diverse society, with more than it's fair share of predators. More to the point, from my perspective, we are living in a fallen and sinful world - the concept of a perfectly peaceful yet free society is merely a fantasy engendered by hubris, nothing more. There is a false peace of mind which can be temporarily bought by the surrendering of one's basic rights to some idolized human government, but that's simply cowardice and inevitably leads to tyranny. Indeed the only statisticly provable solution to multiple shooting events (such as the one which occurred in Colorado) is an armed civilian populace - here is a study which confirms that through research: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637

I suggest you take the time to download the pdf file and read the entire paper.

C.L - great illustration - they'll never understand your question though, as folks like that always assume everyone else is just like they are.

zoobie - thankyou for pointing out a fundamental truth.

oh and a giggle for the y2k kid who once again set himself up by falling for propagandistic lies - the '9390' figure includes all police uses of their sidearms (doh!) ...you see despite their oh-so- pious claims to the contrary, the handgun control people really are trying to disarm everyone, including law enforcement....

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 03, 1999.

In Switzerland (Helvetia, if you prefer), the last time I checked, EVERY responsible, able-bodied adult male was drafted, served three weeks Reserve duty every other year, and was REQUIRED to keep a fully-automatic weapon, with ammo, in his home.I don't know what their gun control laws are...I understand the money-laundering elements have caused an increase in crime over there. I also note that no one has invaded them for a LONG time. To paraphrase one of Shakepeare's characters, the fault lies not in our guns, but in ourselves.

-- Mr. Mike (mikeabn@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

"yes Canada has a few integrated cities, but they have nothing equivalent to Southern California or the Northeast urban corridor (Boston to DC) - we have entire multicultural regions...not just cities. Now compared to that, dumping all of the french speakers in one province seems just a bit obvious, don't you think? ah but we'll let that one pass."

No, we won't. Study your Candaian history (oops! Americans don't learn Candaian history! We only learn about ourselves and our immediate ancestors! DOH!). Quebec was not a place where all the French speakers were "dumped." It evolved as a French-speaking province from the early days.

As for your cop-out about Canadian regions vs. cities, might I remind you of the lovely diversity to be found out in the rural areas of Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota... criminy. As for SoCal and the northeast urban corridor, only differences of scale, mon ami... And Toronto and Montreal are quite close to those regions, are they not? You keep ducking my comparison between Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver and similar-sized American cities, because -- my theory -- you know that your argument falls flat on its face if you dare make the comparison.

-sd, who's a lot more surly in the AM-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

From another Y2K site: (see, this isn't the only NG that sees this as an important topic worthy of discussion.)

(snip)

Rewards of Gun Control

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jew, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

(end snip)

No Thanks.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), May 03, 1999.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Now you have really amused me. You make a direct causal link between the roundup of guns and the later nasty consequences, without making any mention of the Stalinist-Fascist- Communist-Nazi governments (and even cannibalist, in the case of Idi Amin's Uganda) that were in power. You conveniently ignore the many Western, *democratic* countries that have rigid gun control (more rigid than I'm advocating) and almost no violent crime. And, laughably, you forget that not once has anyone on this board called for the confiscation of guns. You embrace the mythical "slippery slope" as if it were a foregone conclusion.

What a nimrod.

-EDN-

-- Extremely Dubious Now (hmmmmm@justcurious.com), May 03, 1999.

background on Swiss guns, since that keeps coming up...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 03, 1999.

EDN or whatever you call yourself

Your name calling will not stop myself or others from expressing our opinions. Get over yourself, your self-righteous attitude is showing.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), May 03, 1999.

Sharon...as I said before, HAHAHAHAHA! Also, as I said before, I am a lot more surly at this time of day, which is early for me. No one's trying to stop you from expressing your opinions, but you had better be expected to be called on stupid statements. That's the fun of Internet forums; occasionally, good debates spring out from the ignorance. This thread was partly heading in that direction, esp. with Old Git's posts (even though I didn't completely agree with her).

You made a flat-out ridiculous statement. I challenged you on it. Now you're whining because -sniffle- I called you a name. If you really want to challenge me, challenge the content of my response to your statement. Otherwise, you deserve to be called names.

--FFD--

-- Full-Fledged Dubiosity (hmmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

oh, and by the way Sharon, no one is trying to stop you from expressing your precious opinions. Just be sure you have the courage to back them up when you're challeneged. Arlin, OG, PNG, and Himilayan Mountain Sage do...what's your problem?

-FFD-

-- Full-Fledged Dubiosity (hmmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

Full Fledged Jerk,

I will respond by saying that yes, there are many here on this forum who can respond to your questions better than I can. I have no personal quarrel with you or your position. However, I am entitled to mine. I feel (whether you like it or not) that gun control is a slippery slope as you so eloquently put it earlier. History bears that out, again, whether you like it or not. The information I provided is just that, information. I care not what you think of it.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), May 03, 1999.

If I say that man landed on the moon in 1969, that's information. If I use that as an argument to suggest that there are aliens orbiting the earth, then it becomes a ridiculous statement.

People like you throw out assertions like that to back up the most ridiculous viewpoints. Try telling the hundreds of children killed every year by gun accidents in the home that we don't need gun control. Try telling the parents of that Japanese kid who was killed in Louisiana a few years ago that our gun policies are better than theirs. And yes, try telling the parents of the kids at Columbine High School that there's no problem with the fact that those kids could walk into a high school with weapons of mass destruction.

So, hey, let's just start selling AK-47s at the 7-11, since you're so petrified of that slippery slope. They're just guns, after all, and the Second Amendment says it's okay, don't it Jethro... Full-Fledged Jerk? You've pushed me to it, you extremist psycho. And as for you not being eloquent, you expressed your stupidity very well, in my opinion.

-FFJ-

-- Full-Fledged Jerk (hmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

In 1981 an ex-convict drove past my house one night and put twelve .22 long rifle rounds through the front of it. For a few seconds I thought the pops I was hearing were firecrackers, but the flying glass and bullets hitting the walls jerked me into reality. One bullet missed my fifteen year old daughter's head by about a foot. Another round went through the stairwell just as my son was about to step onto it. I dialed the police from a vantage point on the floor with hands that shook so hard that I could barely get the call made. When the police came, they dug some bullets out of the house and collected one that had fallen to the floor in my son's bedroom upstairs. They went down the road to the ex-con's house and asked him if he did the shooting! When he said no, that was the end of it. However, when my ex-husband arrived home the next day, he quickly found the person who had sold the rifle to the ex-con and talked to a number of guys who knew about the shooting. (It was a very small town and most people knew each other). It was a felony then, and still is a felony, for a former prisoner to own a gun. Also, the guy had been in prison in the first place because he had threatened a local sheriff with a gun and had fired a gun inside the city limits one night. However, nothing was ever done to him for shooting up my house and nearly killing me, my son and my daughter. The police said they couldn't prove that this guy was actually the shooter. And yes, I am 100% sure that it was him. So much for gun control.

Furthermore, in January, 1998 the woman who lived across the street from me (where I live now) was killed by the guy who lived next door to me for a while. He was also an ex-con, recently released; she was a grade school teacher. This guy stabbed Ellen 83 times, sodomized her, took her car, tv, etc, etc, etc and sold the small stuff to get money to buy drugs with. He returned to Ellen's house three times I think, walking past her dead body each time, to get more items to sell for drug money. Oh yes, did I mention that this guy used the butcher knife to cut Ellen's windpipe TWICE so she wouldn't scream so much???? This piece of human debris was caught in Memphis, still driving Ellen's new car a couple of days later. Had a couple of hot chicks with him. Still had the bloody butcher knife under the car seat. At his trial, his sister and WIFE cried and pleaded for his life. He had a rough chihldhood, you know... The damn jury gave him life in prison rather than the death sentence. Now I get to help pay for this killer's meals and tv soap operas for the rest of MY life. Also, I came very nearly to having a nervous breakdown when I learned that the killer was the guy who lived right there by me for several months. You cannot know what it is like to go though this. Even at that, I can't imagine what the kids in Ellen's classes went through, not to mention her own grown children. So you sob-sister, bleeding heart pukes who bleat endlessly about gun control can go straight to hell with my heartfelt wishes of a swift journey. Have a nice trip. MM

-- wm61 (wm61@siu.edu), May 03, 1999.

FFJ,

Since we already have had gun control laws in place in America for many years, what is your point? Please describe your short term and long term civilian arms policy goals for America and how that differs from current policy. How would you reshape the 2nd Amendment more to your liking?

Thank you.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 03, 1999.

Boy, these are easy. wm61, first of all, I'm sorry about the experiences you described. But your argument in the first case -- that the particular gun control law prohibiting felons from having guns didn't work in that case, so let's trash gun control -- is a bit like saying that people still commit murders, so let's get rid of the murder laws. Ridiculous.

As to your second example...and your point regarding gun control issssss? How, in that scenario, does gun control have any relevance whatsoever? Oh, and I'll see you in hell, buddy, if you are going to insist on using specious, boo-hoo arguments to smokescreen the fact that most of the type crimes you mentioned ARE COMMITTED WITH UNREGITERED GUNS!!!

As to you, Nathan, you were doing fine until you suggested that I wanted the Second Amendment reshaped. I'll ignore that one, as I think the Second Amendment is fine the way it is. I'm all for the right of states and other "well-regulated" organizations to arm themselves. I am not for the right of Joe Blow or his snot-nosed little brother to walk down the street and buy any weapon he wants. Sorry.

Short-tern and long-term goals? Wow. Let's start with the fact that I actually prefer the status quo to the extremist rantings of some gun nuts, who want guns to be as unregulated as toilet paper. I have no problem with anyone having certain weapons to defend themselves; I don't have a problem with handguns, as long as they're registered and their purchase is regulated. I think the existing laws should be more strictly enforced; I think we should reinstitute the waiting period. How's that for a start?

-FFJ-

-- Full-Fledged Jerk (grrrrr@furious.com), May 03, 1999.

FFJ, You'll have to remember that the English language, like any other is not a static thing, but constantly changing. There are a host of studies out that document quite clearly the definiton of well regulated as used in common 1770's language. This meaning is clearly understood in all the early Supreme Court rulings concerning the Second amendment. The meaning is well trained and equipped. If you would take the time to read the entire document Blue posted at the beginning of this thread it is quite clear exactly what the founders of this country intended when the second amendment was added to the Constitution. Gun registration has always led to gun confiscation. There is not one nation on Earth where this has not been the case. True some nations have not completed the process, but in these already any weapons with the capability to mount an effective defense against government run amok are the first to go. The reason gun owners and Patriots fight so hard against any form of gun control is really very simple. If you give an inch they take a mile. This is not a compromise situation. They don't say give us the waiting period and we'll let you have the 200 dollar tax on automatic weapons back, or give us those high capacity magazines and we'll guarantee the government will give up theirs too. This is a constant all out attack on personal freedom and there is no place to retreat. If you give a foot today they take another foot tomorrrow, and another foot the day after that. We are standing with our backs to the cliff of government oppression and a few more steps back are all that's left.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 03, 1999.

Nikoli- finally, someone who argues from the head rather than the posterior. Good point on the meaning of regulated... but I still say that refers to state-run militias and *organized" fighting units rather than any individual on the street. I think that the Supreme Court has seen it this way for most of our country's existence, but I'm willing to listen to contrary arguments.

I still am at a loss, though, to understand how you gun nuts can look at the relative statistics concerning violent crimes here vis-a-vis other nations. Now, let me throw you a bone: I *don't* think this is all because of the mass availability of guns. But I do think guns play a huge role.

As for: "Gun registration has always led to gun confiscation. There is not one nation on Earth where this has not been the case. True some nations have not completed the process..." Ha! You just undermined your own argument! Citizens of Norway, Sweden, Canada, the Uk, Japan, and many other, much safer countries don't seem to be overly concerned about needing guns to defend themselves against rabidly frothing governments...why are you? If it ever came to that point, where I believed that the government was tyrannical, then I wouldn't be overly concerned about breaking gun laws in my resistance *anyway*.

I think that, in America, we have radically extracted our selves and our destinies from that of the nation-state. I won't comment on whether that it is good or bad, but I will say that is very, very understandable. But it's brought with it an irrational fear that Big Bad Uncle Sam is somehow going to crush us with his boots if we have a waiting period for handguns. Arlin said earlier that he didn't trust anyone who uses mind-altering substances (arlin, do you drink alcohol?)...my feeling is that a big fat joint, smoked simultaneously by every gun nut and NWO paranoiac in the U.S., would do this country a world of good...

-MDA-

-- Merely Dubious Again (hmmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

Some of the more recent deaths in this general area:

A student strangled his girlfriend to death at the reservoir. A homosexual was stabbed to death by a former lover. A young guy was stabbed to death at a local party joint. The Amtrak train wrecked totally because a trucker stupidly drove through the crossing gates and got hit. Thirteen dead I believe. A Muslim guy with three wives killed one of them by beating her with a stick for hours. Saturday night a student squeezed himself through a very small window space and fell 16 floors from a dorm. He was on mind-altering drugs they said in the school paper. Another student hit a stick on the road while riding his motorcycle and whacked his head. He's dead. Three guys with baseball bats attacked a student on campus a few nights ago. This is big deer country too. They go through windshields on a regular basis. Two people died recently in separate accidents. A DJ that I enjoyed listening to was killed while riding his bicycle by a drunk driver. What's the point? Where are all you long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart, sob-sister liberals when stuff like that happens? Hey, I want those damn deer OFF the road. NOW. People are dying! There were over 150 deaths from deer/car collisions in this country last year alone. What about the kid here in Illinois that beat his parents, siblings and a few other people to death with a hammer lately? REGISTER those damn hammers. I tell you what, if people just had to wait three days before being able to buy that hammer, we could rest easy!!! And for God's sake DO NOT loan a hammer to a teenager, let alone a younger child. Oh, by the way, I haven't heard a single protest against JOHN HINKLEY being allowed to leave the hospital. Where is Sara Brady?? MM

-- wm61 (wm61@siu.edu), May 03, 1999.

FFJ,

As to you, Nathan, you were doing fine until you suggested that I wanted the Second Amendment reshaped. I'll ignore that one, as I think the Second Amendment is fine the way it is. I'm all for the right of states and other "well-regulated" organizations to arm themselves. I am not for the right of Joe Blow or his snot-nosed little brother to walk down the street and buy any weapon he wants. Sorry.

OK, it seems you have a certain interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that varies from that of others who take a more expansive view. Let's debate that point.

The text for Amendment II 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."

Let's dissect:

"A well regulated Militia,..."

A militia is a group of citizen soldiers, like the Minutemen of yore. This is not the Army Reserve, or the National Guard, or any other body under direct or indirect Federal control. A militia is citizens...ordinary citizens. 'Well regulated' merely means smooth-functioning or workable, like a well-regulated machine. This does NOT in any way imply Federal regulation, at any level.

"...being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

This clause makes plain the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment. Why is a 'well-regulated Militia' necessary? For the security of a free State. Secured for freedom from who's encroachment? Free from the Federal authority under which the States were voluntarily associating themselves at the time the Constitution was drafted. These people had experience with overreaching central authority and left themselves the explicit ability to counter that force, if and when necessary.

The ad hoc formation of a militia for the purpose of securing a free State also implies that the members of the militia have 'arms' (which are not necessarily guns, though this is the current meaning of arms) at least comparable to those of the common foot soldier of the day in which one is living. For how else will the militia be able to counter a force which threatens the security of a free State without such comparable armaments?

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,..."

This is your 'Joe Blow or his snot-nosed little brother'. You may not like it, but they have rights, I have rights, and you have rights. We all have rights...the same rights. Joe Blow has rights because he is part of 'the people', as are you and I. Because Joe Blow is part of the people and has rights, one of his rights, as EXPLICITLY listed in the Constitution, is to keep and bear Arms. 'keep', means Joe Blow OWNS his armament as his personal property. It is not issued by the National Guard, it is not stored at a 'gun club', it is not his personal property one day and then not the next. 'bear' means Joe Blow can carry and use his armament. He may carry and use it when serving in the militia, and, by logical extension, he may carry and use it to gain the facility necessary to function as a useful member of the civilian militia, whether or not the day ever arrives that he actually is called to serve as part of the militia.

"...shall not be infringed."

Infringed means limited or encroached in some way. The 2nd Amendment has been limited in numerous ways already. Some of the limitations are sensible, some are not. Some of the limitations are constitutional, and some are not. A waiting period of perhaps a few days is sensible but not constitutional, but with current technology and instant checking, it's probably not necessary. A background check is sensible but probably not constitutional. However, the unconstitutionality and inconvenience of these safeguards may well be agreeable to most law abiding citizens, provided conclusive proof is forthcoming that they actually make any difference AT ALL in the on-going procurement and use of arms for the purpose of committing illegal acts by those who DO NOT abide by these same inconveniences. Otherwise, we simply yield to 'infringement' of the 2nd Amendment for naught, diminishing the full measure of our Rights in the process.

Wholesale exclusion of entire categories of militarily comparable arms is not constitutional, for it defies the purpose of the 2nd amendment, that purpose being the necessity to raise a civilian army, equipped in such a way and in such numbers that the security of the free State may not be jeopardized. Limitations on numbers of arms that a person may 'keep' is not constitutional. Keeping a Federal database of who owns what arm is definitely NOT constitutional if used as a tool to tax, confiscate, or otherwise harass the constitutional guaranteed ownership of arms.

Short-tern and long-term goals? Wow. Let's start with the fact that I actually prefer the status quo to the extremist rantings of some gun nuts, who want guns to be as unregulated as toilet paper. I have no problem with anyone having certain weapons to defend themselves; I don't have a problem with handguns, as long as they're registered and their purchase is regulated. I think the existing laws should be more strictly enforced; I think we should reinstitute the waiting period. How's that for a start?

'Gun nuts'? What's a 'gun nut'? Please define.

What are the 'extremist rantings' you refer to. Please provide some concrete examples of both 'extremism' and 'ranting'.

Which weapons will YOU allow us to defend ourselves? Are your allowances constitutional? Will your allowances allow the raising of a functioning civilian army to counter tyrannical Federal power? Will criminals agree to your allowances?

Handguns ARE registered and their purchase IS regulated. Do you somehow fear that, in the near future, they won't be registered and their purchase won't be regulated?

I agree that current gun laws should be enforced, at least the ones that don't directly violate the Second Amendment. However, what do you mean by 'more strictly'? Do you mean the laws on the books are not being enforced? Or do you mean the body of law should be further extended? If you mean the former, why aren't the current laws being 'more strictly' enforced? Are current penalties too lax? Are the police ignoring their duty? If so, why? Are the laws unenforceable? Are the prisons too crowded? Or are the gun laws actually intended to discourage the law abiding majority of citizens from owning arms, as is their constitutional Right?

Did the waiting period for handguns make any difference in illegal gun ownership? Is 'waiting' for 10 days any more beneficial than 'waiting' for five, three, one? Can you site a study that shows a meaningful and measurable benefit of the 'waiting period', apart from political rhetoric? Can you find a such a study that also includes statistics for those who, in dire and immediate need of a sidearm for personal protection, were actually injured or murdered while 'waiting'.

Thank you.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 03, 1999.

Nathan, I'm about to go home, so I don't have time to respond to you rentire, very thoughtful post (as opposed to the one that preceded it from the other person...exactly what I meant when I said, "smoke a joint"). But I will respond to one point...

"The people" in the second amendment refers, and has always referred, to the *States* as opposed to individuals. Nothing whatsoever is implied about Joe Blow or any rights he might or might not have.

--sd-

-- Slightly Dubious (hmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

Merely dubious. This is going to be a little disorganized because my printer is out of ink and my server keeps disconnecting me so bear with me please.

First off the Militia is divided into two groups by U.S. code law under the armed forces section. A quick search under militia and U.S. code will confirm this. The first section is the national guard under State control, the second section is defined as all males from 17 to 45 years of age under no ones control. This is the citizen militia. The citizens militia is expected to appear bearing arms of the type and kind in common use by the armed forces in the event of foriegn invasion, and they serve as the essential last safety check to domestic government grown tyranical. This is one of the oldest definitions "militia" in the U.S. code and was written by the same people who wrote the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I think that pretty well speaks for itself.

I cannot speak for the citizens of another country as to whether they harbor fears of government gone bad, but if you wait till that point to violate gun control laws there will be no guns to be had. You have placed yourself entirely at the mercy of the govenment, and history shows this is not a prudent practice at all. switzerlands excellent constitution was modeled after the U.S. constitution, particularly the section on armed forces and militia. That is why Ever Swiss citizen has a full auto weapon with ammunition in their home. They seem quite happy with that arrangement, possibly because their government is not constantly trying to take the guns away from them.

The reason our culture is so violent is very complex. I'll list what I think are the main reasons, and as you will see they are almost all induced by the government either directly or indirectly.1.) The rotating door prison system trained first time offenders in violence lumping them with hardened criminals and then released them back onto the streets 2.) Government welfare policies produced several generations of fatherless children living in poverty who are now for the most part either languishing in prison or pursuing their peer taught trade on the streets. 3.) government failure to seal the borders has resulted in a massive influx of Machismo oriented Latinos' into the country who have not succeeded in making the transition from third world to first world. Clumping these groups into ghettos adjacent to other ethnic minorities has spread this machismo attitude throughout the street gangs resulting in an endless cycle of disrespect killings and retributions, 4.) The government allowed Castro to empty his prisons into this country which also resulted in untold deaths which continue today. 5.) The government has underfunded the construction of new schools, resulting in massive overcrowding in our school systems. Any zoologist can tell you overcrowding leads to violence. 6.) Known gang members are not segregated from the general school population and spread their violent subculture like a virus among your children. 7.) The governments war on drugs is a total farce designed to disenfranchise minorities and the poor of their voting rights and kill out ambition. Our government could stomp out the flow of drugs into this country in a very short period of time if they wanted to. This policy has also resulted in thousands of non violent offenders being caged with the dregs of humanity where they had to learn to live as animals to survive.

I could go on with this all night, but I think you see my point.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 03, 1999.

Nikoli-- interesting. (Yes, I'm still here...haven't escaped yet.) I agree pretty much with all seven of your points (except the statement, "Our government could stomp out the flow of drugs into this country in a very short period of time if they wanted to"...sorry, I don't think so, but I agree with the rest of point 7). As for yoru militia tutorial, you may very well be right...don't have the resources or time right now to argue.

LEt me chew on this one and get back to you... I may be a gun nut by morning, but don't hold your breath... :) -sdbstc-

-- Still Dubious but Starting to Crack (hmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

SDBSTC,

Stay away from the crack, laddie. Smoke all the pot you can puff if need be, but don't go there.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Deedah, you make me smile. Not as much as a nice milky bong hit, but close... :)

-DM-

-- Dubiously Mere (hmmmm@curious.com), May 03, 1999.

Tidbits to ponder:

1. The government's definition of "militia" as set forth by the US Congress - "Every able-bodied male resident of the nation, excepting specified officers, between the ages of sixteen and sixty." Each member was expected provide his own military suitable weapon, ammunition and proper equipment for engaging in military duty.

In the late 1970's, Congress took the opportunity to ammend the definition the definition of "militia" to allow women to volutarily participate. Strangely, when it had the opportunity it didn't bother "to correct a common misconception" and specify that "militia equals National Guard" the way the anti-gunners portray it to read.

The "specified officers" clause refers to members of the standing Army (which includes the Guard and Reserves) and holders of Constitutionally-specified office.

2. There is a little remarked upon (generally ignored by anti- gunners) 1932 Federal Court (possibly Supreme Court, I don't have the book here at home) decision regarding the Second Amendment, those rights as applied to the individual, militias and prohibition of weapons ownership.

The Court's decision was such that it ruled that the Second Amendment does not refer to government-sponsored activities and organizationa, but to individual citizens. The Court also ruled that Congress does not have the power to limit or prohibit individual ownership of firearms.

In fact, the Court ruled that *the only power that Congress has pertaining to the Second Amendment would be to REQUIRE OWNERSHIP OF SPECIFIC MILITARY FIREARMS* as part of its role on supporting the clause role in maintaining "A well regulated militia".

Me, I'd go for tax deductions for yearly purchases of military gear, ammo and a new "militarily suitable" firearm every five years in exchange for a commitment to participate in a community militia or posse (depends on your locale, I guess).

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 03, 1999.

W.W. check six, HA. I find it interesting that your U.S. code gives the ages of 16 to 60 and mine 17 to 45. I guess when they inserted the female clause they also changed the ages. Mine doesn't list amendments to the code it just incorporates them. Additionally most of the court decisions I have read just say every able bodied male without any age limitations at all. I like that tax deduction idea, I have been wanting to claim my AR-15 as a dependent for a long time.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 03, 1999.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

-- George Washington, in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

"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."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

--Thomas Jefferson

Hope you enjoyed them.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), May 03, 1999.

Mr Deedah,

With all the reading I've done on the subject, I've missed that first quote by GW. It's a "killer".

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), May 04, 1999.

as to the question of intent:

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, in An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

and

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard HenryLee, in Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer, 1788.

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 04, 1999.

Additional quotes demonstrating the Constitution's authors' intent:

"No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to the Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

" ... the people have a right to keep and bear arms." Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185

"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

"Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops... " Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... " Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-88

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"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)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 04, 1999.

Yes Greybear, that one struck me right away as a real keeper. I found it while (s)linking around in...

Here

But I suspect you already knew that.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (used2be@unkeeD.B4civility), May 04, 1999.

Why does a red neck say the word "sensuous"?

'Cause he wants another beer!

"Sensuous-up, wudja get me a beer?"

And since I'm up I'll do two in a row and address a few of PNG's points, something I was remiss about, sorry P, or is it Mr P? Maybe Mr G? Mr NG?

Crap, too late and too much brew, how about the old ditty that goes something like this:

P...I say PN... PNG....PNGG. M...I say MO....MOP....MOPP. PNGG MOPP!

As to your query about needing a license to drive, yes, you need one to do it, ya canna drive without it. Perhaps that is because the US Constitution does not say:

"A well regulated highway system, being necessary to the security of fast travel, the right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed."

The copy I have doesn't have that Amendment in there, but it's an old one, I coulda missed it. And, as far as your point about people who do not vote, I could not agree more. They are the bane of a free republic. And to your other point about sticking our collective nose in other countries bidness? Read what the founders thought about that too, we are missing the mark there as well.

NOW,

As to your catty reference including the words "hair" and "pain", my hair just fine, thank you. It just sits quietly in the sink, it hardly screams at all.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (used2be@unkeeD.B4civility), May 04, 1999.

I noticed it was alluded to but maybe we need to bring it out of the woodwork.

The current standing army has a very tenuous standing. About every (and i forget the time frame) period of months, there has to be a bill introduced to continue the military (ALL of it, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard hope that's it, it's late) in place. To continue constituting it.

And the document referred to inthe original post is STILL required reading, though I've only managed to scratch the surface there.

Chuck, who has some Quake (as in Friends) Friends who would be HORRIFIED over his current positions. So, I grew up.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 04, 1999.

A New study on handgun laws and violent crime.

www.papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637

"While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple vicim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws."

Food for thought in view of current events.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), May 04, 1999.

All please take cognizance of Jamaica's horrific experience.

-- nada nohow (ninguno@nowhere.nil), May 04, 1999.

OK, things were bad in Jamaica then. But (hey read it first please) suppose she had had the Luger, and some local criminal gang had broken in, and she'd fired and killed one or more. She'd probably still be rotting in a Jamaican jail cell today. This isn't one of those "judged by twelve" things, we're talking third world here.

There is no solution to all this.

-- dunno (who@isit.now), May 04, 1999.

It Can't Happen Here

Frank Zappa, Mothermania, April 1969

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times, hmmmmmmmm

And I'm telling you
It can't happen here
Oh darling, it's important that you believe me
(Bop bop bop bop)
That it can't happen here

Who could imagine that they would freak out somewhere in Kansas...,
Kansas Kansas tototototodo
Kansas Kansas tototototodo
Kansas Kansas
Who could imagine that they would freak out in Minnesota...,
Mimimimimimimi Minnesota, Minnesota, Minnesota
Who could imagine...

Who could imagine,
That they would freak out in Washington, D.C.
A.C. D.C. A.C. D.C. A.C. D.C.
It can't happen here
Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here
No freaks for us
It can't happen here
Everybody's clean and it can't happen here
No, no, it won't happen here
I'm telling you it can't
It won't happen here
(Bop bop didi bop didi bop bop bop)
Plastic folks, you know
It won't happen here
You're safe, mama
You're safe, baby
You just cook a TV dinner
And you make it
(Bop bop bop)
No no no no
Oh, we're gonna get a TV dinner and cook it up
Go get a TV dinner and cook it up
Cook it up
Oh, and it won't happen here
(No no no no no no no no no no no
Man you guys are really safe
Everything's cool).
Who could imagine
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in the suburbs
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool
I remember (tu-tu)
I remember (tu-tu)
They had a swimming pool.

And they thought it couldn't happen here
(duh duh duh duh duh)
They knew it couldn't happen here
They were so sure it couldn't happen here
But...

-- cant_h (cant_h@ppen.here), May 04, 1999.