From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:18:29 GMT

In article <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>>Registration has time and again been used for confiscation. Why do 
>
>References please. . . 

It happened when the Nazis entered France, where the Nazis warned that
those not surrendering the arms registered to them would be shot,
and in New York City, where law-abiding citizens who had registered their
rifles previously were told to surrender them to police or send them
out of state or face stiff criminal penalties.

Registration has also been a first-step in banning firearms used
responsibly by law-abiding citizens.  In Chicago, handgun registration
came first, and then a complete ban by preventing any further registration.
Similarly, Congress first began registering machine guns in 1934, and then,
in 1986, although only one misuse of a legally registered machine gun
had ever occurred--and that by a policeman--BANNED FURTHER REGISTRATION.

Registration is also used to "keep tabs" on law-abiding citizens guilty
of no crimes.  Police are warned of "numerous registered firearms" when
they roll on a call in California, and often treat the occupants of 
the residence like criminals; but what criminal would register his
gun?  The BATF conducts illegal acts, such as operation "Forward Trace,"
where they snoop through 4473 registration forms without looking for
evidence in a specific criminal case, but instead foraging for 
certain "profiles" that buy "assault weapons".

Doubt not.  Registration prefaces confiscations and outright bans.
History proves the point.  Criminals don't register their guns.

>Nobody has come for me yet.  :-)

Don't worry.  After they come for the gun owners, and then for
opponents of big government, and then for "subversives," they'll
come for you.

Only, there won't be anyone left to stand by your side and tell
the Gestapo, "No!"  Why?  Because the gestapo came for them years
ago, while you stood silent.

>Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
>guns?  If they had, I think that the nervous and hungry army would have
>done some shooting, instead of foloowing their consciences.

The Soviet Union fell from internal economic pressures, under its
own weight.  An armed populace, like a seat belt, is not involved
in _every_ bad turn that is avoided, but its presence is a
priceless last resort.

>Where it might help (but couldn't hurt) is getting guns out of the hands
>of small time psychos, children, and abusive spouses.

Children are barred from purchasing firearms under federal law, as
are those who have been committed to mental asylums.  (If you say,
"There are crazies who haven't been committed," then you forget that
a man is innocent until proven guilty.  In this country, a man must
be allowed to exercise his rights until evidence shows he has abused
them.)

Men abuse their wives with their raw muscle.  It is women, the
receivers of abuse, who need firearms to protect themselves.

>   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch

"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."
  --General George Stark

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary
 security, deserve neither."
  --Benjamin Franklin


 If the government ever orders its citizens to turn in their guns,
 I'll base my decision on a few wise words once spoken by Captain
 Picard--"Their are times when men of good conscious cannot blindly
 follow orders."  Too many crimes have been committed throughout 
 mankind's history under the banner of law and order.  When man
 ceases to be free, he ceases to be bound by the laws of his
 government.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc