From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and surrealism
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:39:38 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug22.041005.17017@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>>Reality check: give an example of a fascist or tyrant advocating that
>>the common people be armed.  I'm waiting.
>
>The fascists usually say something like "Rely on yourself, not on the
>collectivity". This is exactly the same meaning as your arguments.

Not by a long shot.  I suppose JPFO, a Jewish organization fighting
for the right to keep and bear arms in this country, is a "fascist
organization" by your definition.  Most intriguing, but not terribly
meaningful.

>Sure you have this right. In France too, the right to self-defence is
>guaranteed. If someone assaults you to kill you, and if you happen to
>have a weapon, you have the right to defend yourself.

Of course, "if you happen to have a weapon" has a probably -> 0
if the government confiscates all weapons that could effectively
be used for that purpose.  In essence, your telling us to,
"lean back and enjoy it."  
>
>However, the most effective means of protecting yourself does not
>imply the right to buy weapons freely. If you want to get an arm 
>for legal purposes, you should not mind a control on this purchase.

Nowhere in the US can you legally "buy weapons freely" without
any control.  All store-bought firearms must be noted on 4473 forms;
it is illegal to sell them to non-residents of the state, felons,
or those with a mental record.  Requiring "skills tests" and other
crap has been used in the past for invoking de facto bans.  Besides,
by even sinking to level of arguing with you on this point, I'm ignoring
the fact that the SECOND AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM ENACTING
ANY CONTROLS INFRINGING THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  Period.  It
doesn't matter what controls you would like, or feel would reduce crime.
You can't enact those controls.

>If you allow honest citizens to buy any weapon they want, you also
>allow gangsters to do the same.

Ha ha!!!!!  What an ultra-maroon!  There's a huge "pool" of guns already
out there--200 million in the US.  Banning civilian ownership won't stop
criminals from owning, carrying, and using firearms.  The "War on Drugs"
has been accompanied by an INCREASE in drug smuggling, and a "War on Guns"
would fail just the same.  Except, of course, guns last longer than drugs,
so fewer guns would need be smuggled.  And, if you intend to consficate
guns from current owners, you'll either have to deny them the fair
market value for their guns, or finance it with a huge payment (increasing
the national debt).  Assuming a low value of $100 per gun (an average new gun
in the US costs $300-$600 or somewhere in the range), and 200 million guns,
the price tag for the taxpayers would be TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS!!!
>
>>Come back when you've figured out the difference between vigilantism and
>>self-defense.
>
>In France too, you can buy revolvers. With control of course. Once you
>get a permit, you can carry your pistol at any time. But there is no
>way to buy a semi-automatic rifle, and have it transformed to fully
>automatic by someone just on the other side of the street. This makes 
>sense to us.

Easily convertable semi-autos were already subjected to stringent machine
gun control by BATF several years ago.  The semi-autos available now
CANNOT be easily converted.  
>
>You know, you don't need a Uzi machine gun (like the ones for which
>you can find ads here in the USA) to protect yourself.

Please tell us how to buy an "Uzi machine gun" here in the US.  Do you
have a clue?  First off, you can't buy a new one--sales were banned.  If
you want a used one, you must get the approval of your local chief of police,
pay a $200 tax to BATF, undergo an FBI background check, and wait several
months, probably close to year, in order to get your "Uzi machine gun."
By the way, if you had so much as a bar room brawl 20 years ago, don't
expect to get approval.  Many states have stricter controls than this.

As for semi-auto Uzi's, these are functionally identical to Ruger Mini-14's,
and even modern "hunting" rifles.

Besides, in the US "need" is NOT the operative word--it's "want".  That
I want something should be sufficient reason for me to have it, provided
that there is no tangible and specific "victim" who would be harmed
by my obtaining what I "want".

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore the people shall have access to all militia weapons, including
military-style arms.  That's what I shall always believe.


        "Join the Jeff Cooper '92 write-in campaign!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns