From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:26:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov10.172631.22511
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

note followup

bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>	Her being elected "with the help of the
>rich-white-liberal Handgun Control, Inc" is nothing more than
>the NRA rhetoric that is common now. I find the arugment that "we
>have to protect our right to bear arms to be both flawed and funny.

The defense of any right guarenteed by our Constitution and its
amendments is not funny.

>First the average citizen can`t purchase the hardware need to
>wage a war with a corrupt government and second the "right to
>bear arms" was in regards to rasing a state militia. This fact
>is often left out when this issue is debated. The fact is that
>gun purchase should be regulated in the same manner as any
>dangerous product should be regulated.                     

First, you are wrong.  More than 50% of the households in this
country have a firearm.  Should the citizens of this country
raise up in arms, there is not a single armed force in the
entire world that could stand against them.  There could be no
'peaceful' repression of the citizens, and remember that our
armed services are composed of citizens as well.

Second, you are wrong.  Read the Federalist papers at some time.
Or better yet, read the Constitution, the milia is still a
legal part of our government, and is composed of every adult
citizen.  That means me.  On top of this, the Amendment in question
had many different versions.  There is an overwhelming historical
evidence that the amendment was intended by the founders to
provide for personal defense as well.

Also, in every single gun-control attempt, there has never been
any success at reducing violent crime.  And in places where guns
are openly respected and owned, violent crime is controled by
the population.  Its a sad fact, but police are not required to
save your life, and in such a situation will not be able to.
Citizens kill more felons legally than our law enforcement agencies
do.  The amount of accidental use of firearms, with children and
friends and family, is incredibly small.  More people die from
bathtubs and stairs.  And a *huge* amount of guns are owned in this
country.

Sure, there are instances of people picking up firearms legally and
then hurting or killing people with them, but there are many more
instances of citizens using them to defend themselves.  I have never
heard the NRA argue against instant background checks (although they
want an appeal process on the information, if it is incorrect).  They
train a tremendous amount of firearm owners every year how to use them
safely and correctly.

NRA members are corporate women, housewives, teachers, factory workers,
politicians, doctors..  people who have decided that since the bad guys
will always have guns, and that no amount of control or regulation will
change that, that the only way to avoid complete despair was to keep
the playing field equal.  I have *never* met an NRA member who thought
killing people with guns was a good idea.

>			Carter

.....jeff