Do very many of you who are gun owners belong to the National Riflemans Association? I have owned guns all my life but have a hard time believing that I should be a member. I don't believe in gun control like some nuts want it (no guns at all). Yet I do believe in some type of gun control when you see someone walk into a school with a fully automatic. The guns I own are just your basic hunting rifles, only hold up to five shells, have to shift the bolt or lever to eject another round into the barrel. If you try to take these away from me you will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers! I use these guns a lot for hunting, property and life protection. But I don't agree with N.R.A. who protects the s.k.s, a.k.a, 9 mm pistols, etc. the type of guns with the purpose of mass casualty. Hope I don't step on a soar thumb!

-- Russell Hays (rhays@sstelco.com), August 13, 2001

Answers

Russell there are lots of us who own guns, who don't belong to the NRA, and who wish that everyone would just lock there guns up so kids can't get to them! Another shooting this week in the Houston area, 10 year old kid found his fathers shot gun and killed his little brother. This is the problem that needs to be addressed, which on the other thread of "40 things" wasn't addressed! And just like the spay or neuter thread, until folks take responsiblity for there rights, radicals, concerened moms call us what you want, are going to try to impose restrictions on those rights! The father of the 10 year old should be in jail, not only for having a gun in the house not locked up, but having not taught his son gun safety! Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), August 13, 2001.

Russell, We do not need more gun control to prevent kids from walking into a school with a gun. There is already a law against that. It is already against the law for a minor to own a gun. Along with rights to own a gun comes the responsibility of owning a gun. I believe in things in their proper order: Rights, responsibility, control. Not the other way around. And no we do not belong to the NRA. We have in the past. No reason.

-- Belle (gardenbelle@terraworld.net), August 13, 2001.

In all those school shooting, not one was using a 'full-auto'. Fully auto guns have been regulated for 70 years. In the 50s and 60s there existed just as many guns as today and they were a whole lot easier to get. Anyone could order them through the mail. I don't recall any school shootings happening back then. It's not guns causing the problem, it's the direction our society has gone. TV, movies and video games and the parents who let their children become exposed to those things are way more responsible for violent kids than guns. It's just alot easier to blame guns and the average person today couldn't survive without a tv. A gun is just the means, not the cause. I could take out far more people in a crowd with my car than I could with any full-auto gun.

-- Dave (something@somewhere.com), August 13, 2001.

Russell, in their effort to take guns away from the public they need to start somewhere. Today it's the ak's and large capacity pistols...tomorrow it's every gun. Just because a gun has a 30rd magazine doesn't make it more lethal. You could still get off 30 shots in a bolt-action rifle in relatively quick time if you wanted to. In the majority of school shootings, less than 10 shots were fired. In the worst one, one of the guys used a 5 shot pump shotgun. Also, still to this day the largest mass homocide was committed with 1 gallon of gasoline. Their agenda goes against rational thinking. It's like the 'zero-tolerance' weapon policy in school now. Kids have been expelled for having nail clippers or even drawing pictures of guns. What's ridiculous about that is a #2 pencil or chair can be a much more lethal weapon that nail clippers. Their agenda is not to solve a problem, it's to condition young minds to accept controls that go against rational thought. If you think safety is the reason for gun control agenda you're not looking hard enough.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew." "Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist." "They came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant." "Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up." Rev. Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

-- Dave (something@somewhere.com), August 13, 2001.

Russell,

It goes the other way also. I have two friends that are members of the NRA and they have never owned a gun. One is even a life memeber (meaning he paid $750 to join). They see the NRA as one organization that stands up for all our constitutional freedoms, not just the Second Amendment. You will see Wayne LaPierre (NRA Executive VP) fight just as hard for the First Amendment as he does for the Second Amendment. Can the same be said for Senator Clinton, Dan Rather, Charles Schummer, et.al?

A long time ago, the NRA and its members realized that there will never be an end to calls for more and more gun control. This is because the avowed goal of many in the gun control movement is the total removal of all guns from the hands of "We the people". They know that they cannot accomplish this goal in one fell swoop, so they attempt to accomplish it by something called "incrementalism". They chew at our rights and freedoms a little each day. So, as a means to counter this incrementalism, the NRA cedes very, very little in the legislative arena. The NRA was duped once when they helped fashion the original gun control act, the one in 1968. They've regretted it ever since.

Please remember that the NRA is just a voice for 4.6 million everyday people who have an appreciation for all our constitutional freedoms. The NRA protects them all. By virtue of the lifestyle most readers of this forum have chosen, "Homesteading", I can assume that most are freedom loving people who have little use for other folks who believe they can impose their beliefs on each other. Frankly, I'm surprised that every homesteader out there is not a member of the NRA.

-- Steve in So. WI (alpine1@prodigy.net), August 13, 2001.

Russell:

Sometimes, it is hard to justify defending the right of people to own rifles which are, in fully automatic version, weapons used by the military to fight. But have you considered that hunting rifle, such as you describe, could also be defined as 'sniper rifles' My hunting rifle, one that I use for deer hunting, has made 4" groups at 500 yards (on targets; I would never shoot that far at a live animal, too much risk of botching the shot)?

Now I would not dream of using my 'sniper weapon' against human targets, but would the gun grabbers care? You own it, you are guilty of owning a weapon of destruction; give it up or take the consequences.

My vote is own whatever you want; you use it for murder, fry.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), August 13, 2001.

I agree with Dave. If you don't stand up now for the ENTIRE Constitution, there will be nobody left to defend you when they come for YOU! And I am a little suspect of you, Russell! How do you confuse fully automatic with SKS, AK, etc.? And why did you purposely misspell "soar"? Methinks you are an ATF plant to see who argues with you! If you are not, I pray that you get educated before you cause harm. If you are, then a pox on you and yours and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits! GL!

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), August 13, 2001.

Well Russell...

perhaps it took some guts to start this post... considering!

I started my own traditions 5 years ago when I joined the NRA on July 4. It's not about being able to carry any specific firearm or getting 'facial' with people who don't agree with my outlook.

It's about Independance and a bit of paper called the Constitution. No matter how it's spun, that is what the NRA stands for. And it's about honoring the sacrifices made in the past to ensure our freedom today.

Hope that helps answer Your question.

Randle

-- Randle Gay (rangay@hotmail.com), August 13, 2001.

I don't understand your logic. I have a 9MM for home defense with a few preban clips. Good for close range, if I should ever need it. I also won't have to worry about reloading, just point and squeeze. Or do you use a single shot breech action shotgun or rifle for home defense? Bolt actions are great for hunting, thats what I use. Not that there's anything wrong with semi autos. I like a semi auto .22 for plinking. Fun and cheap to shoot. I use breech action shotguns (single shot) for squirrel or rabbit hunting. Everything has a purpose. Any firearm can be used to kill a human, and we all know this.

If you walk into school with ANY weapon (even pellet and or bb guns) its bad news. Let along knives, stars or a thousand other things. When I was in school, we LEARNED to shoot IN SCHOOL. Well, not in the classroom, but you know what I'm saying. This was in sixth grade I think, and was in the 80s in a Cecil County, MD public school. I'm sure other places had the same program. We sure as hell didn't run around shooting each other then. I'd think these programs are long gone now, and thats too bad. BTW, I'm not a member (currently) of the NRA but I support them.

Sooner or later I figure they will regulate fireams out of existance. Make it that much easier for the coming changes. We sure ain't gonna be beating our swords into plowshares anytime real soon.

-- Uriah (Uriahdeath2@netscape.net), August 13, 2001.

We don't need any organization that just wants our money to tell us it's alright to own guns, my gosh, what would the American Revolution been without guns?

I totally agree with J.R., have as many guns as you want, but, if you, or your minor child, commit a capitol crime with one, you better be prepared to fry, no easy lethal injection death accepted here.

No one is ever going to take our guns away from us, heck, even Canada and Europe have hunting rifles and guns. Assault rifles and the like are unnecessary and stupid, those could happily go in my opinion with no complaint, but that would mean NO ONE has them, even law enforcment, military use ONLY.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), August 13, 2001.

Every rancher has guns. If a varmint is after the livestock, it won't be for long. Many don't walk their property without a gun due to the snakes. Ride a mount in the desert without a gun? Of course not. Having guns locked up and lead elsewhere is like being with no guns at all. Kids are taught how to respect/handle guns at a young age; it's always been this way. These aren't the kids that'll shoot up a place 'cause from the day they're born they're taught something that isn't taught in most places anymore ~ respect. They're also the only kids who seem to have manners anymore. It's not unusual for a kid around here to open a door for me when I walk into a business in town.

Yes, I belong to the NRA; can't hurt, might help.

-- ~Rogo (rogo2020@yahoo.com), August 13, 2001.

I do belong to the NRA. I do not own a gun. I do not hunt. I will go on supporting the NRA because they are the one large voice that yells NO, when the pressure is on to prevent ownership, by the individual, of guns. Now it is specific type of guns. Later it will be all guns. "Just register your hunting rifles, this is only registration." This was what was said to gun owners in Australia, I think perhaps also in Canada...can someone who knows more add to this...anyway, in Australia, it was registration. Nothing was to happen except the registration. Now it was known where the guns were. At least the guns belonging to honest folks who just tried to follow the directives of their government officials. Then it was no longer legal to have firearms and guess how they knew where the weapons were? Those registration records. And "they" came and got them. I am not certain of the following but saw a video, on TV, that claimed now even the Olympic shooting team for Australia, now cannot keep or practice with guns in their own country but have to go outside their country to do it. I have the impression that the same video mentioned that the gun registration and later confiscation happened in Canada also. Anyone know for sure?

The whole idea of the right to own weapons was for individual protection and not against dangerous critters. If Americans were armed and the men who acted as our leaders, voted in or appointed, decided to take our right to govern ourselves from us...they would have to wonder where those guns were. Times may be different than they were then but the tendency of power to corrupt is the same.

On the subject of always having guns around, years ago, yet not having this same rash of in school shootings... I think there would have been far fewer in school shootings if the media, (mainly television), did not jump right in with cameras and helicopters. This is not an original idea. I've seen people discuss it on panel shows, also on TV. The media argues that "The People have a right to know." This may be so, but a whole day, maybe several days, of nothing but shooting reports on every chanel? When there was a drive by shooting, in CA, on the freeway, the media was all over it. Immediately there were a dozen more. Now it is pursuits on freeways, the news helicopters all over the place. One after the other. School shootings, one occurs and then someone else gets the idea. There will always be those who are easily influenced and follow even negative leads. Those who want a moment of attention at any price.

And, as a previous post said, there are people handling guns who have never been taught that guns require their handlers to know what they are doing, have proper training and above all, have respect for the weapon, themselves, others. Guns are a tool. Beautifully crafted tools at that. If guns are ever legally removed from ownership it will not stop deaths. People who want to kill will kill. Those who have not been taught to take care and think before acting will still act. Rocks, sharp sticks, scissors, gasoline products, and all kinds of things can be used to kill another person, deliberately or accidently. It is not the gun that kills. It is the person holding the gun.

I don't know if the NRA will, ultimately, make a major difference in this effort to remove guns from personal ownership but, I will go on supporting the NRA, just in case.

-- Jo (joeydee37@yahoo.com), August 14, 2001.

"But I don't agree with N.R.A. who protects the s.k.s, a.k.a, 9 mm pistols, etc. the type of guns with the purpose of mass casualty."

Then you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Read it again (or perhaps for the first time) if you think its purpose is to protect your hunting rifles. Some gun owners lament the introductory phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...", as antigunners have used it to mislead many people into believing that this amd. (uniquely among amds. in the bill of rights!) protects only state rights and not personal rights. I for one am glad that the introductory phrase is in there... lest we forget this amd's real purpose is to keep in the hands of citizens such arms as are required to carry out those rights and obligations of citizens so eloquently outlined in our declaration of independence.

And FWIW, most deer rifles are much more lethal than a .223 caliber M16 (or 9mm for that matter) - the cartridge of the latter rifle (and nearly all modern assault rifles) being designed primarily so that a single soldier may carry more rounds of somewhat comprimised range and lethality.

-- Thomas Massie (thomas@inr.net), August 14, 2001.

Russell,

I am an NRA life member and I originally joined because I saw they represent the defense of the American way of life and our Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment. Like the Reverend said, if you don't speak up, there won't be anyone to speak up. I believe there could be some major wake up call to Congress if enough people joined groups such as this. I too disagree with some of the NRAs points, but I see what they say as a bargaining tool. You rarely go to the bargaining table with your best offer first, or there would be nothing to bargain with. Americans have become complacent, and if we aren't careful, we will end up like these sorry people here in Europe that don't even have the will to disagree anymore, unless there is violence involved like the skin heads and other hate groups do. Read the Federist Papers adn you will find what the Founding Fathers wanted for this great nation.

-- Chris Tomlinson (cdtomlinson@notmail.com), August 14, 2001.

Thanks everybody for your response. I guess what it boils down to is how respectful and responsible you are, no matter what type of weapon you use whether it be for hunting or personal protection. I was given my first gun (BB. gun) when I was six years old and my training of respect and responsibility started then. In the years following that first gun I became a hunting and fishing nut. I've owned and continue to own several hunting rifles to this day. Each gun has its own purpose on how I want to dispatch the critter I'm after. I've learned through out the years of hunting to practice E.S.P. (exact shot placement) to down your animal with one shot only and make it count. So I guess when I see someone in the woods carrying a rifle with a long banana clip it makes me wonder just exactly what all his purpose is of owning that gun. I just hope he had good trainning when he was growing up also.

-- Russell Hays (rhays@sstelco.com), August 14, 2001.

And thank you for posting this question Russell. I hope you didn't feel put on with our responses, but as you intimated yourself, gun control views are nearly as devisive as religion, abortion rights and political views!

I have also been taken to task by some aquaintances. "Why would you need THAT gun; expecting an invasion by the Red Chinese?" and other similar comments. Those comments really ticked me off; if I use a gun in a legal manner and method, whose business is it of anyone to tell me what I have is illegal and I'm a paranoid, violent gun freak? The S.K.S. is a great rifle for knocking about the countryside; cheap, accurate for close up work, powerful enough for short range big game, and has ammo costs extremely reasonably priced. Sounds like a homesteaders dream gun to me. The 9mm parabellum cartridge was developed sometime in the early 20th century (1901?), not exactly some newly developed cartridge for killing innocents, the term 'parabellum' in Latin means 'prepare for war', not prepare to kill. It does have military develpment history, but then so does our the common bolt rifle; back in Spanish-American and World Wars I and II, the bolt rifle was commonly issued to soldiers. Some are still in use today.

I have heard that Smith and Wesson has really been hurt because of comments and practices enacted by the company in order to "appease" the federal government. Fact; many gun owners do not have a sense of humor when dealing with their constitutional (and God given right) in their owning guns for hunting, target shooting, and self protection.

I didn't feel you were making a judgement on anybody, just asking a question which invites some friendly debate. No hard feelings here; have a great day!

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), August 14, 2001.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. I taught my children to understand, use, and respect firearms, just as my parents taught me. Many children of firearms phobic parents don't have an opportunity to learn those lessons at home. The training offered through the Eddie Eagle program is reason enough to support the NRA. As for the other very important NRA freedom functions...remember...It's not about GUNS...it's about CONTROL!

-- Bill Boyd (boydb@noralnm.com), August 14, 2001.

Some of us liberal types who are alittle more gun control than not have considering joining the NRA as voting members, for that very reason - its called change from within. HEE HEE. Just kidding (well, some aren't kidding but I was - couldn't afford the dues and my medical bills!)

On another front, those Conservatives who believe that Liberals will not stop until all the guns are gone call these same Liberals reactionary and inflammatorey when they say that the Conservatives are after the same thing with abortion rights. Either its a real threat, or its not, folks, on both sides. Both arguments are as strongly felt about by both parties.

Perhaps we should just allow parents to keep guns and shoot the dishonorably intentioned men who try to bed their daughters, or shoot dishonorably intentioned girls who seek to entrap their darling boy in a loveless marriage. ;)

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 14, 2001.

Jo, I know for sure. It's lies.

There are a lot of lies told in the USA about gun ownership in Australia. I've got to the stage where I'm going to keep my response on file, and just paste it into any forum where I find those lies. It's important, because the liars are going to ensure that everyone loses their guns if they continue on with it. They say they're pro- gun-ownership, but their actions are going to lose people their necessary firearms. They are so consistent about it, and so obviously lying, it's as if they were deliberately trying to get caught out - makes me wonder whether that's their intent.

Basically, there's a lot of propaganda put out by an element of what claims to be your pro-gun lobby. It's untrue. My personal opinion is that they're making a big mistake by telling lies - they're going to get caught out, and their own lies will be a big part of the reason why they lose their case - and your "right to bear arms". And that won't be good for any of us, anywhere in the world, because firearms are essential tools (call them power tools) particularly of anyone who keeps livestock, and of most crop farmers too. If you can't control predators or if you can't put down an injured animal, then you have no business keeping livestock. If you want to grow crops, circumstances will often arise where animals start destroying the crop, and the only control that works is killing.

I strongly believe that anyone who tries to arrange for the raising of livestock without the availability of firearms is deliberately arranging cruelty to animals. If it happens to be legislators doing it, then they're trying to enforce cruelty to animals by law, and they should be treated accordingly - at the polls at least.

Another thing you'll often see or hear is that since the outlawing of firearms in Australia, crime, particularly firearm-related crime, has soared out of control. Tain't true. The fact is that, regrettably, crime was increasing anyway. Stricter gun-control didn't affect it one way or the other. Stricter gun-control didn't control crime. Stricter gun-control didn't make things worse. Stricter gun-control just plain did nothing - except make shooters' lives more difficult, and use a lot of taxpayers' money to no good effect. Well, that's not strictly true - the much tougher laws on keeping firearms securely locked away did cut down on accidental firearm deaths in children - but it didn't affect crime trends at all. Following the "Port Arthur massacre" the politicians underwent their spasm and outlawed self- loading firearms (POINT: NEVER say automatic or semi-automatic - paints a picture the whackos can use. Self-loading is accurate and less emotion-laden these days - if I could I'd introduce the term "self-reloading".) In fact, they used taxpayer money to finance the largest re-armament of private Australia since fifty years before, just after the end of WW2. They paid good money for self- loading firearms (often old and shot-out); and people then used it to buy new bolt-action or lever-action or pump-action rifles. Unfortunately, they also almost totally outlawed self-loading and pump-action shotguns, many of them family heirlooms, and people had to replace them with under-and-over or side-by-side shotguns.

We have never had the same attitude towards pistols as has the USA. In fact, we've always (in and after the 20th Century, anyway) regarded firearms in the hands of the public as either tools or sporting goods. It's only in the hands of the military or the police (or certain strictly-licensed people in security-related jobs, such as security guards) that firearms have been regarded as weapons. In fact, self-defense is not a legally valid reason here for a private individual to have a firearm (although it's quite possible for people to take part in pistol-shooting as a sport).

We also have firearm-related death rates about half that of the USA. However, you can't get here from there, and I don't think it would be desirable for you to try - you'd have to sacrifice freedoms and rights, and you'd still have the guns out in the community - just not in the hands of the law-abiding. If I were living in the USA, I'd bear arms for self-defence. I'm not, and the society I live in doesn't make it necessary. However, when that portion of your gun- lobby that's lying gets caught out, you may very well have to endure the experiment soon.

-- Don Armstrong (from Australia) (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 15, 2001.

Many children of firearms phobic parents don't have an opportunity to learn those lessons at home.

...........................................

Exactly Bill, so lets all make sure when they come to our homes with/without our children they don't have access to these guns!

And these firarm phobic parents really do have something to fear. Lets all be honest here, how many of us have the shotgun or 22 rifle leaned up against the wall in the backroom? With no intentions of putting it up, of getting a lock for it, and how many kids in your neighborhood know this! Our hand guns are hidden, but how we live, in the woods, I simply can't not have my rifle loaded and ready to go, and not for people but animals. With younger kids around here again, we are having going to put the rifles up above the doors in holders (and once again it is "going to" haven't gotten around to it yet, but they still will be in plain view. So what is the answer? Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), August 15, 2001.

Vicki, the answer is not to remove the guns, but to remove the movies which glorify violence. Also, all kids who want to, should be allowed to join gun safety clubs at a young age. The clubs should be run and taught by the local law enforcement, to train youngsters in respect for and handling of firearms.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), August 15, 2001.

Better yet, daffodylady, how about teaching those kids in school, where all the kids are taught together. I am so sick of watching those people on the news, who "accidentally" shot someone. 99% of the reason given: "I didn't know the gun was loaded". Hells Bells, man, haven't you heard of CHECKING TO MAKE SURE OF THE CONDITI0N OF THE GUN!

Three basic rules for gun safety that will eliminate this problem: 1). ASSUME ALL GUNS ARE LOADED AT ALL TIMES. That means don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want to hit. 2). NEVER PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO SHOOT. 3). NEVER PULL THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU POSITIVELY IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET.

The N.R.A. has the Eddie the Eagle program, which teaches basic tenets of gun safety. When I was in R.O.T.C. in 9th grade, marksmanship was taught, using .22lr rifles. Still is taught here, only with air rifles.

Lots of kids receive exposure to guns through the media. Until teaching gun safety is mandatory, it is up to us parents to teach our kids how to be safe around guns. Sermon over.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), August 15, 2001.

Russell, I am an NRA member. I don't always agree with them, but then I realize that whatever their policies may be, these are the only thing standing between us and gun confiscation. If NRA fails or falls, gun ownership in America is doomed.

-- Craig (hotquill@hotmail.com), August 15, 2001.

Vicki, a start might be to store the firearms unloaded. It really doesn't take long to get a cartridge into the breech (assuming the ammunition is readily available), even less if all you have to do is insert a magazine and work the bolt. I'd strongly recommend at least that much.

Beyond that - well, your call. Our legislation mandates storing firarms and ammunition in separate locked cupboards (steel, fixed to floor), or sections of a cupboard. Easiest construction is key locks, and of course you have to have the keys in a place which is not obvious, and is away from the cupboards. It would be quicker with combination locks, unless you always carry the keys on you. It's a pain in the butt when you need to get off a quick shot, but the fact is it really has reduced accidental shootings of children dramatically. I think, though, that separate compartments is probably excessive. If you're careful, they can't get into either. If for any reason they can get into one then most times they'll be able to get into the other as well.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 15, 2001.

P.S. ... and all kids should have kittens or chickens or guinea pigs or mice or somthing that's going to die. So many have been sheltered from reality, and they just don't know what death is - they think if you die all you do is reload the game from the last save, and play again.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 15, 2001.

Don, we all KNOW the answer already, my point is how many of us even do this? How many unloaded, locked up guns, shells, or with the new gun locks with the key elsewhere, firearms are there on Countryside? I am betting very few. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), August 16, 2001.

If you read the Constitution and the Federalists Papers (to figure out what the Founding Fathers were thinking)one comes to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is there for ONE reason. And that reason is too keep a tyrannical government in it's place. It has NOTHING to dow with hunting. Yes Mr. Hays, we need SKSs, AK-47s and 9MM pistols. We need more than these. In the last century, governments killed over a 100 million of their own citizens. Don't think it can't happen here.

-- John Hardin (johnh@moscowmail.com), August 16, 2001.

Hello Russell, I am a member of the NRA. Need I say more? Ernest

-- http://communities.msn.com/livingoffthelandintheozarks (espresso42@hotmail.com), August 16, 2001.

Yes, Vicki - I know you know - after all, you said more or less the same thing first response in this thread. However, the more times, the more different ways, that answers are given the more all people may think about things; and get closer to an answer which is both safer and more workable in their own situations. The more different viewpoints can be constructively applied to a question, the closer we are likely to get a satisfactory answer.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), August 16, 2001.

<<<< That's why Conservatives and Libertarian's are infiltrating the leftists as well Soni. You haven't purchased the market on convert operations! LOL

<< You "forgot" two things here....

1. Federal tax money is going to support your right to abortion. If you didn't want federal tax money being spent on your right to kill your own kid, you would have a much easier fight. You have ZERO rights to tax funded abortion from the start.

2. Guns ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, while killing a life is NOT...unless it's self defense.

<< Nice logic here Soni!

Lew

-- lew ricker (hsppub@aol.com), August 18, 2001.

My tax dollars are also going overseas to kill someone else's kids (with guns in wars) so I consider it a wash.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 19, 2001.