From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:14:46 GMT

In article <9301092335.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) 
writes:>In article <C0I7A4.A5K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.
indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:>>In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> 
rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:>>>>>>>>>And what about people with 
felony records?>>>>
>>>>They don't want people to own handguns either.
>>>
>>>But your not worried about felons having guns?
>>
>>What we got here is a failure to communicate.  Some men, you just
>>can't reach.  Now, take him over here.  He's bringing this upon
>>himself.  Son, are you dense, or what?  Or, are you an AI undergoing a
>>Turing test?
>>What the hell is a felon doing walking the streets?  If someone has
>>proven themselves to be a menace to others, why do we let them free
>>after they've committed their crime?
>>Stick to the topic at hand please, or is that beyond your capability?
>
>Ok.  Citizens have a "right" to have guns.  Due to the current state of
>society, criminals can buy illegal guns any time they want.  

This is not quite the case:  it is illegal to for convicted felons to buy 
guns at all.  Laws against it doesn't stop them from obtaining them.

>Some states
>are enacting or have enacted laws that make it difficult to buy and carry
>a gun, but in these times it is more important than ever for honest
>citizens to have guns, because there are so many criminals getting illegal
>guns.
>
>What is actually being done to get rid of illegal guns?

By whom?  The legislature, or Sarah Brady, or gun owners?

THe first and the second are trying to ban and confiscate all guns.  The 
third are trying to keep their rights and don't have time to address the 
issue.

>
>What percentage of illegal guns are stolen from homes in the first place?
>( When I'm away from home for a few days, my guns are locked up about as
>  well as can be expected. )
>
>Lets here some ideas how states can get the revenue to build more prisons.

Sell confiscated guns to law-abiding citizens.

>
>And the bottom line, why did the states start backing off on easy ownership
>of guns?  Seriously.

It was politically motivated:  there are two primary factors involved.  
First, as minions of the state, the legislature is uncomfortable with the 
idea of power it does not control.  It is in the vested interest of any 
state body to remove firearms from individual control to concentrate the 
monopoly of force in the hands of the state.  The second was a shift in the 
ideology of the electorate.  As the state accrues more power, people get 
used to looking to the state to solve more problems for them.  In time, self-
defense came to be looked upon as a state-provided service, rather than 
something that individuals were responsible for.  Gun control laws are a 
cheap and easy means of looking like you are doing something.  Crime 
reduction costs money in terms of prisons, rehabilitation, and 
intervention.  By comparison, gun control is cheap.  Thus, the tax-fattened 
hyeanas appeased the electorate without raising taxes, and protected their 
phoney-baloney jobs.

Thus endeth Archer's theory of the evolution of gun control.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)