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: 24 Aug 92 00:01:04 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug23.014936.16269@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com 
(Marc Milanini) writes:
>Exactly how much control is carried out to enforce this ? None or little.

I have no objection to increasing enforcement of extant laws prohibiting
felons and mental patients from buying firearms.

>Those who actually submit themselves to the law (and register their weapon)
>are not the ones that commit crimes. The weapons used in crimes are
>weapons that were legally owned at one point and then fell in the
>hands of gangsters, one way or another.

Since guns can last for a century if treated well, the "at one point" may
have been 1920 or thereabouts.  Furthermore, now that criminals have
guns, more gun control won't affect them--criminals won't turn in their
guns.

>And how long does the USA intend to remain the only industrialized 
>country in the world to provide such constitutional rights ?

America is unique in many ways.  We are the strongest military power
in the world, and in many ways also the most libertarian country in
the world.  I hope this tradition continues long into the future, so
that my children will live in world free from government coercion.
All the rights one has in a libertarian society pertain to freedom
from government coercion.  Indeed look at the Bill of Rights--all of these
rights pertain to being left alone or protected from government action.
I would be saddened by more "gun control" or "socialized medicine".  The
US differs from most other countries in both these fields, and I PREFER
IT THAT WAY.  "Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."

>As I already said four times today (by E-mail), if you are a criminal,
>and if you are determined to have a weapon, nothing will prevent you
>to get one (and it's the same in France). However, gun-control will
>make it more difficult, thus reducing the number of weapons in the
>hands of criminals.

At most you could hope to keep the number of guns in criminal hands
constant.  You won't reduce the number.  An insignificant number of guns
are consficated by police each year, an amount that could easily be
kept up with through smuggling.   By outlawing guns, all you'll do is
cause some law-abiding gun owners to give up their guns.  Many gun
owners who have obeyed the law in the past will refuse to surrender
their arms to the government, and millions of criminals will be
manufactured.  (N.B.  Compliance with the Califruity "Assault Weapon(tm)"
ban was about 10%.)

>The increase in drug smuggling is by no means caused by the war on drugs,
>it is exactly the contrary...

Evidence?

>How much would be saved ? How many less dead in L.A. if there was
>no weapon available at all ?

Sure, they might be a few more rioters alive today, and a few more 
burned-out stores that used to belong to law-abiding Korean Americans
who now have no means of livelihood.  Indeed, the LA Riot, with its
high profile footage of police turning tail and running off in times
of need is a strong argument AGAINST GUN CONTROL.  If you can't depend
on the police, you must depend on your own arms.

>>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.  
>
>Good to know. What about those already in circulation ?

What about those already in circulation?  My statistics show that
only 1-4% of all guns used in crimes are semi-auto "assault weapons".
Surely these older convertible guns make up some fraction of this.   Hardly
a significant factor that one should consider if one wants to impact
criminal misuse of firearms.

>>As for semi-auto Uzi's, these are functionally identical to Ruger Mini-14's,
>>and even modern "hunting" rifles.
>
>Yes, and you can buy them at garage sales.

In some states, yes.  In other states, you have to display a hard-to-get
license and fill out forms to send in to the gummit to buy them.  In
the states with the toughest restrictions on such purchases, the crime
rate is the highest.   I guess such restrictions don't work?  

>>Therefore the people shall have access to all militia weapons, including
>>military-style arms.  That's what I shall always believe.
>
>What if I want a nuclear bomb ? Should have I the the right to keep
>my nuclear bomb in my garage ?

A "nuclear bomb" is not a militia weapon.  Militia weapons consist of those
that can be operated by a single man or a small crew and can safely
be directed at specific targets without endangerous those at which the
weapon is not directed.  Weapons of mass destruction, like H-bombs,
nerve gas, etc., are not militia weapons.  I would consider a tank loaded
with conventional ammunition to be a militia weapon, along with anti-aircraft
weaponry.  I would not object to regulations requiring these devices to
be stored on a large enough piece of private property that an explosion
would be harmless to those on neighboring property.
>
>>        "Join the Jeff Cooper '92 write-in campaign!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns