From: marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:49:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: guns and surrealism

In article <1992Aug22.203938.6103@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.041005.17017@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>>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.

The fact that you are using fascist-like arguments does not prove
that you are fascist. If you are fascist, you are bound to use
this argument. But, if you use such arguments, it does not imply
that you are one. Anyway, I would not say that all no gun control
supporters are fascists, only some of them.

>>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."  

The most efficient weapons for self-defense (the ones that you
can carry and conceal easily) are allowed in France.

>>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

Exactly how much control is carried out to enforce this ? None or little.
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.

>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.

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

>>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"

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.

>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,

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

>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!!!

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

Note that I am not advocating the prohibition on weapons (it would be stupid).
I am just answering to your argument.

>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 ?

>>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.

Alright, I thought that "machine gun" was a generic term for all
automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I agree that there is probably
enough control on machine guns.

>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.

>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".

Agreed.

>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.

What if I want a nuclear bomb ? Should have I the the right to keep
my nuclear bomb in my garage ?

>        "Join the Jeff Cooper '92 write-in campaign!"

-- 
=---K8>>@@@@@@@@ Marc Milanini @@@@ marcmil@microsoft.com @@@@%%