Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:03:55 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


followups directed to talk.politics.guns

davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:
> OK, I've got to set some of this in perspective.  Let me start
> out by saying that I am TOTALLY anti-gun.  England has something
> like 7-10 gun deaths a year, and we have 20,000 or more.  That
> alone says something.  I am for STRICT gun restrictions.

you realize, of course, that every place such restrictions have been
put into place they've failed miserably.

> ON THE OTHER HAND (!!!), I understand the argument that the bill
> of rights was NOT meant to protect hunting rights, but rather the
> right to arm a militia.  This is not an unreasonable premise.  The
> people have a RIGHT to overthrow the government if it gets 
> unbearable.
> 
> Now that I've supported both the NRA and my own strict anti-gun
> opinion, allow me to say what I think we should do.
> 
> What, then, about the right to form a well-armed militia?  What 
> about the original intent of the 2nd amendment?  Let me put it this 
> way: when the 2nd amendment was written, we didn't have M-1 tanks.  
> We didn't have F-16 fighter jets.  We didn't have chemical weapons,
> nuclear weapons, or microwave weapons.  We didn't have missiles. We 
> didn't have audio/video bugging devices.  We didn't have the FBI.
> We didn't have the CIA.  We didn't have nitroglycerine or dynamite.
> We didn't have Apache attack helicopters.  

and the logic goes:
1. the founding fathers said we should be allowed to
2. we can't anymore (an arguable point, and i will)
3. therefore, we shouldn't be allowed to anymore

faulty.

> The US Government has all of these.  Anyone who thinks that owning
> automatic weapons and assault rifles is going to let them overthrow
> the US govt. is insane, stupid, or both.  Saddam Hussein thought 
> the same thing.  We all know what happened there.  The US Government
> could utilize enough force to level Texas in the blink of an eye.
> And if I'm a U.S. soldier in my M-1 tank, you can fire your AK-47
> at me all you want, I'll just laugh at you and blow you and 100
> of your buddies from here to Timbuktu. Then I'll just roll over your
> dead bodies and look for more rebels to crush.

and then my wife will use a common 9mm pistol to kill you while you're
sleeping. ever heard of guerilla warefare? -that- is what would
happen, not a full out military conflict.

sure, the US government has enough nukes to wipe out the whole
NA continent. that doesn't mean they will. it's rather difficult to
use tanks or F-16s when your targets are the size of a human &
you don't know which ones are friendly and which ones aren't.
you could take out that bridge, but half the people who use it
could be on your side.

conquering a country with military force is -much- easier than
supressing a fiercely independent people who are defending
their own homes. in such a situation, a handful of people with 
automatic weapons are practically unbeatable.

> If you want to overthrow the US government, you'll have to do a lot
> better than automatic weapons.  You'll have to have a lot more than
> teflon-coated bullets.  You'll need your own network of 
> communication that you KNOW is secure.  Good luck.

computers. modems. faxes. encryption programs. the kinds of things
the government is already trying to control. "for our own good", of
course.

> You'll need MASSIVE quantities of explosives.  Good luck getting 
> those without the CIA/FBI paying you a visit.  

trip to the grocery store. let the CIA visit. after all, we've -only-
got a few assault rifles. and some plastique.

> You'll need tanks. I'm trying to keep from laughing.

moren' one way to skin a cat. or kill a tank. seems to me inverted
dinner plates worked once... and tanks are notoriously useless when
they don't have a target or an objective. ("Lt. Jenkins! I want
you to take out 114 Willow lane drive, skip 116, blow the bejeezus
out of 117, and...". meanwhile, the people in 116 are watching
property values drop & decide maybe they should be getting rid of
any government that does such things.)

> You'll need heavy artillery and anti-aircraft.  I'm trying to keep 
> from busting my gut laughing.

same problem as with tanks. civil wars are not fun or easy to fight,
even when one side vastly overpowers another. any future ones fought
in the US are more likely to be along ideological boundaries than
geographical ones. it's pretty difficult to apply force with extreme
prejudice when the "good guys" and "bad guys" are all mixed up together.
Viet Nam anyone?

> You'll need serious air-ground surveilance equipment and weaponry.  
> I'm trying not to suffucate from laughing.

stinger missiles are nice, i admit. mainly for supply planes and
helicopters, which can be targeted more precisely than large scale
attacks. Afganistan anyone?

> The United States has the biggest military in the world.  (China 
> outdoes us for pure manpower, but that's irrelevant.)

hardly. you can't threaten people with brute military force. they
tend to react with "so? nuke us if you like. destroy our homes &
factories. -you- need them as much as we do." the threat of a large
& vicious police force is a lot greater, just the sort of thing
that personal assault weapons would curb. at least, -i'd- hate
to be a gestapo agent walking into a neighborhood where every citizen
hates me & has an AK handy.

> The NRA fools that expect to protect themselves from a US military 
> coup are living in the 1700's.

or in Switzerland. it's difficult to have a military coup when the
citizens make up a good portion of the military.

> With this in mind, is gun control a reasonable thing?  Well, the 
> original intent of the 2nd amendment having been outdated by the 
> size and strength of our military, the obvious answer is YES!  

then maybe it's time to return the military to the people, as the
framers intended?

the answer is far from obvious. your premises are false, your
logic is faulty and your conclusion is one proven not to work.

> In England, the COPS don't even carry guns.  If somebody is 
> reported breaking in somewhere with a gun, they don't surround the 
> place with unarmed cops, they call in a special force of snipers 
> and pick the guy off.  It works.  Less than 20 gun deaths a year.  
> More than 20,000 here.  Which side of this argument looks most 
> reasonable? Let's get real.

on the other hand, we don't get mortar attacks on the White House either.
let's do get real. English styles just happen to be a bit different
than ours.

jason "power to the people" steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`              PGP 2.0 public key available on request.               `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:597 alt.politics.perot:5599 talk.politics.misc:61108