From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:43:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc


In <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu> Kent Williams states:

|I wan't even thinking about the Methodists.  Thanks for tipping me off
|to their left leanings.  Actually if you went out and polled churches
|for their 'official' positions on gun control, you'd find many main-line
|denominations in favor of gun control.

Yes, you're right about that. The support for the National Coalition
to Ban Handguns is just the tip of the iceberg; many other left-wing
organizations are headquartered in the Methodist Building in Washington,
DC.

|As for sticking their nose into your business, being more strict about
|who owns guns is a lot different than turning all women into
|involuntary breeding stock.

Let's see now:

[1] Women as involuntary breeding stock; sounds like an impedient to
    of individual control of one's body.

[2] "Being more strict about who owns guns."

    This means either one wants the government to control legal 
    ownership of guns to "the people," and hence wants to convert
    a natural right to weapons to one of mere privilege or...

    This means one wants to stop illegal ownership among the criminal
    classes...

    Which one do you have in mind?

|  Maybe we should outlaw abortion so that we'll have more people to 
|be moving targets.

Or maybe federally funded abortions on demand to lower the number of
moving targets and hence number stray rounds... :-(

|In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
|handguns.

Not only do I believe that people should own handguns with self-defense
in mind, I believe people should own assault rifles as well. I think
it is an excellent idea that people have the capacity to not only defend
themselves and loved ones against attack, but be able to band together
to form community defense ad hoc militias.

The Korean Americans in Los Angeles have shown the effectiveness of
ad hoc militias in defending against mob action.

|I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
|them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
|serving.

It's not clear to me why you consider the NRA position cynical; either
people need weapons to counter private and public threats to life
and limb or they don't. The NRA contends, based on historical precidence,
that owning private arms empowers people to engage in the guidance of
their own destiny, in the face of both public and private threats.

|Guns are big business.

Yes, that is true, in terms of economics to other parts of the sporting
goods industry.

|Many of the people involved in the NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns.

On the other hand, NRA membership predominately is _NOT_ involved
in the firearms trade except as consumers. Nice touch though to paint
NRA as a tool of industry, and not of a cross-section of American
society.

|People stand to lose money if we
|as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.

Money has little to do with the effectiveness of NRA as a political
organization. NRA is simply a communications device to it's membership
to tell them what's happening in the political arena. All NRA can
effectively do is inform members of threats by politicians or
legislation. It's up the collective response of the individual members
to determine if effective action has been accomplished.

|We'll
|never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
|because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
|ownership.

Hee Hee Hee... right... handgun bans in Morton Grove, IL, semi-auto
bans in CA and NJ, Saturday Night Special Bans in MD... yeah, the
ALMIGHTY NRA can crush the lies of the news media and HCI at a moments
notice...

|Guns engender violence.

Right; the Swiss are awash in guns, so they must have plenty of
gun violence, right? The Israelis have lots of Uzis, Galils and
M16s; guess they have plenty of firefights between competeing Jewish
groups, huh?

|Fights that used to be settled with fists and
|bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.

Translation: the unarmed when attacked by criminals just became "victims"
in the past; now, they fight back with effective lethal force.

Why the hell should you accept being injured, maimed or paralyzed
because someone decided to attack with fists? This is not some sort
of medieval ritualistic battle; this is a case where an innocent person
is attacked by a wrongdoer. 

|Where do the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  
|Then it was stolen or sold or lost.

You lost a SIGNIFICANT step here; guns are MANUFACTURED by someone FIRST.

This means that a criminal could manufacture weapons as well.

|We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making more.  Why?

Well, gosh, it couldn't be because PEOPLE want them for assorted legal
reasons like SPORT, SELF-DEFENSE or Preserving the Free State?

|There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
|pro gun side seems to want to find it.

Sure they do. Fight Crime, Shoot Back. Get rid of all the stupid
concealed weapons laws so that people can carry weapons without 
worrying about being caught by the police. Open public target ranges
in the middle of cities so that people can practice. Allow open
carry without police harassment. For damn sure the police won't
protect you, E911 or no E911.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4390 alt.politics.clinton:4413 alt.politics.elections:12629