From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:43:24 GMT

In article <103002@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>
>>No, that's an apples and oranges comparison.  A closer analogy is that
>>CBs are limited to .22lr, while hams can go from there all the way up
>>to .50cal BMG.  Your comparison was comparing power to mode, it would
>>make as much sense as saying that CBs are only limited to 4 watts
>>while hams can transmit packet.  No logic.
>
>Here, I disagree.  The analogy was not in the relative power outputs 
>allowed by CB vs. ham.  The analogy was that people in rec.radio.cb
>argue to justify why a 4 watt limitation is very reasonable; to go
>past it is sacriligious (sp) while in rec.radio.amateur.misc, hams
>regularly use higher power without dire consequences.

Ok, given that I'll see to your arguments.  The original post really
read funny, at least to me.  One of the possible reasons that the cb
crowd screams so much about too high power is that they are given a
very limited bandwidth, and they are in a freq that can be subject to
skip, so people running "illegal"  can really screw up others hundreds
of miles away.  Enough people doing that and one aspect of 11 meter
communications quickly becomes useless.  Hams are granted *much* wider
bandwidth, so there's less elbow bumping.  A similar comparison can be
made to usenet, even though there are no laws governing it's use, most
of the people using it agree to some general guidelines, on the
premise that those guidelines help keep it running.
I'll see to the other aspect of your argument below.

>I am just saying that it is possible (although not likely given some
>of the feedback by those who have military experience) that the same
>phenomenon is happening in t.p.g.  Namely, becauase NFA '34 is in effect,
>we are arguing why such restrictions are reasonable.  By doing so, the
>government has already restricted our rights.  We are no longer arguing
>why the government unjustifiably restricted our rights but rather 
>arguing why such restrictions are reasonable.

Personally, I don't think that restrictions on firearms ownership is
reasonable, with the exceptions of limiting ownership by violent
felons, minors, or those rightfully adjucated too mentally unstable to
meaningfully interact with society.  But if a citizen has demstrated
that he is not of feloniously (sp?) violent nature, and is allowed to
interact with society, then there should be no restrictions on his/her
ownership of personal defense weapons, up to but not including weapons
of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, large incindiaries, large chem
explosive weapons, etc).  I personally would like to own full auto
weapons, SAMs, and anti-tank weapons, and I don't think the government
should restrict my right to do so.  But they do, and it looks bleak
for getting them to relent, which leaves us to...

...doing our damndest to keep them from removing any more of our
rights.  I'll say this in public, if they outlaw firearms, and try to
confiscate them,  I will *NOT* turn in *any* of mine.  This will, in
effect, make me a criminal.  What the heck, I already occasionally
break the speed limit.  I may go to jail for my actions, but I sure as
hell don't plan on going easily.  In short, I'm plenty ready to fight
for my right to self defense.  Back anyone into a corner and they're
either going to quiver and beg like a coward, or they'll fight, even
if it's a sure loss.  What I'd rather do, though, is not have our
government do that.  I'd rather have our government once again
acknowledge that the right to self defense is inherent, not granted.
That way, I can continue to be a productive citizen who contributes to
his society, instead of one who feeds off of it.

>As an example, back in the 18th century, gentlemen considered it their
>right to defend their honor by fighting a duel.  This duel required the
>consent of both parties.  The rules were agreed to by both parties
>(although there were prevailing customs).  The government was not
>involved at all.  Nobody not a party to the disagreement was hurt; all
>were consenting adults.  Today, duels are illegal.  We now defend these
>governmental restrictions as reasonable under the concept of preventing
>murder.  I disagree.  If all parties involved are consenting, I have 
>absolutely no right to interfere, it is none of my business that
>two (or more guys) are trying to kill each other.

I agree too, and to kind of tie this back around to your original
argument, I think the main reason you get the NFA '34 appearing to be
supported by those of us trying to defend our gun rights is because
the anti gun crowd keeps throwing terms like "assault rifle", and
"submachine gun", and "fully automatic" at us, and we point to the
NFA'34 as evidence as to why such arguments they use are ridiculous.
Doesn't mean we support it though.


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent