From: davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:53:34 GMT


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.

Like?

>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.

hardly.

>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.

Get real!  Do you honestly think you'd be able to get NEAR enough
to anybody of any importance to shoot them?  Forget it!

>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.

Again, the military has much better technology than you could ever
come up with.  They could pick people off in the middle of the night
and you'd never know what happened.  They HAVE secure communications,
you don't.  They have intelligence forces that could figure out 
who's doing what, and they have the special attack forces to take
out every one of them.

>> 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.

Not "trying."  They DO control them.  Wiretaps are easy for the 
government.  And in the case of a civil war, they wouldn't bother
with warrants.  Encryption programs are a joke to the military.
One of my friends from college was Air Force Intelligence, and he
said they got hundreds of letters a day with "uncrackable" codes.
He said none of them took their computer more than about 2 minutes
to crack.  You could use some of the mathematical encryption that's
on, for instance, typical UNIX systems, but if you did, they'd just
shut down your phones.  You don't actually think they'd be nice
and LET you send encrypted messages, do you?  How dumb are you?

>> 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.

Man, you've been reading "Soldier of Fortune" too much.  The quantity
of explosive you'd need would fill a wharehouse.  And if they ever
found out you had it (which they would) you'd "mysteriously" disappear.
We're talking treason here, they're going to pull all the stops.

>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?

A) Our technology has increased since then.  B) As I said earlier
in this post, they can cut off every means of communication you
have.  You seem to have forgotten that they control the country,
and you're a band of rebels.

>> 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.

Stalin, anybody?  History proves you wrong.  Stalin killed thousands
of people, and nobody even noticed.  He took over the farms and
put in his own people.  It worked quite well.   And once again,
a "whole neighborhood" of ak-wielders is going to get demolished.
What was that college that got fired on in the 60's?  Open firing
on a whole group of people is not something the US govt. has a big
problem with.

>> 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.

On the contrary.  Then you have more people in the military than you
have regular citizens.  That's the weirdest logic I've heard in a 
long time.  "If you have more military, it's harder for the military to 
take over."  Huh?  In China there are 300,000,000 military.  That's
more military than the US has citizens.  Do you think that if the
students in Tienamen square had AK-47's they'd have won?  HA!

>> 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?

Did they?  I don't think "voluntary service" means "every citizen
should be in the military."  Where did you take your logic class?
Catatonic State?

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

You're AWFULLY sure of yourself.  Try again.

>> 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.

Yeah, they're civil, we're barbarians.  I'd rather have mortar attacks
on the White House (which is pretty damn unlikely to happen just
because we illegalize guns) than to have 20,000 people/year get killed
by guns.  The White House could be reinforced to withstand it.  The
Common Man can't afford or acquire heavy-duty body armour.

It always depresses me to find that people are actually so 
self-deceived as to think they could overcome something as formidable
as the US Military.  Isn't it more productive to try to work WITH
the government?  I mean, if the government got THAT out of hand,
you can believe that I'd be one of the first to die trying to fight
it, but I sure wouldn't expect to win.  I'd be fighting simply as a
matter of principle.

			-- David

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns