From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of S. 2913 (Chafee handgun confiscation)
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:23:17 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

Thanks for posting the text of this Chaffee gun ban thing.  Its a real
eye-opener.

On this Chaffee handgun ban...

Notice that the "Public Health and Safety Act of 1992" is also sponsored
by Cranston (figgers) and some dingbat named Pell (Probably a misspelling
of 'Hell').

I think its rather interesting that Security Guards are permitted to
possess a handgun ONLY WHILE ON DUTY - that is only while safeguarding
the assets of some rich individual or corporation, or (in the
bodyguard role) protecting some rich/powerful individual ... yet is
PROHIBITED from having that same gun to protect HIMSELF or his family.
Realizing that bodyguards are subject to attack EVEN WHEN OFF DUTY
since it would be prudent to 'neutralize' a bodyguard by either
killing him or grabbing his family (gunless if this law is passed) to
encourage him to be less-than-effective in protecting his
rich/powerful client.  I find it interesting also that POLICE are
totally exempt - this means that they CAN have their weapons at home
when off duty.  This seems rather inconsistant with the claim of the
bill that handguns are of little use for personal protection, one of
the rationalizations for this bill.

I find it curious that the rationalizations also claim that the
handgun violence injuries are a burden on the health care system, yet
the guns this bill is after (legitimately owned ones, not criminally
owned guns) are not the source of that 'burden'.  Rather its the guns
that would NOT be turned in - the ones outside the scope of this bill
that create this 'burden'.  And, judging from past history, what guns
ARE removed from the criminal population will be substituted by
deadlier long guns or cut down long guns (like sawed-off shotguns), or
substituted by other weapons of mayhem (bludgeons such as bats, clubs,
or knives, etc).  In short, since past trends suggest that the
'burden' on the health care system of injuries due to handguns will be
replaced by injuries due to other weapons, the 'burden' will not be
signifigantly lessened.

Also, since there are over 66,000,000 handguns in circulation if
the figures given in the rationalizations for the bill are to be
believed, if turned in guns are paid for by 'Fair Market Value as
determined by the Commissar - I mean Secratary', it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out what THAT will cost:  A decent handgun
runs anywhere from $150.00 to $600.00 each, lets say an average of
$200.00 and that is on the CHEAP side - 66,000,000 times $200.00 is a
lot of pocket change.  Of course 'as determined by the Secretary'
probably will result in a $500.00 handgun being worh a 'fair market
value' of $35.00, so that will cut the cost.  Note that fair market
value is to NOT be determined by the market, but some unelected
bureaucrat.  In other words, the owner not only loses his gun, he
isn't going to get anything near what he has paid for it.

The idea of 'proper' clubs being allowed to have their guns locked up
either at the police station or club safe is only a crumb to get
shooters that are club members to go along with it (you can still
shoot your gun, you just can't store it at home).  This will get all
the remaining handguns into a few centrally located places, so when
they declare them TOTALLY outlawed (you can bet that will follow up,
probably the following year, and done quietly via execuitive fiat), so
the BATF agents can, probably at night, via synchronized raids, sieze
them all in one fell swoop, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, "while the issue is
being decided".  Of course, this will be a formality.

Bottom Line:  Since the rationalizations are mostly unsupported, and
most can be shown to be untrue, and the cost of reimbursement, even if
most guns are declared to be worth $25.00 (highly likely) will be
enormous, the 'savings' will be minimal.  Since it is easily demonstrated
that such bans won't do a whit to reduce the violence on our streets,
it becomes apparant that these aren't the reasons for the law.  As
Metzenbaum once blurted on TV when pressed with evidence that gun laws
don't reduce crime, "I don't care about crime, I just want those guns",
the reason is that those in positions of power just don't trust 'common
folk' with arms - they want the GOVERNMENT to have a MONOPOLY on coercive
force.  This is understandable, since what some of these clowns have in
mind could well cause some folks to consider revolt.

We are supposed to have a government WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
This implies that the governed have the MEANS TO REVOKE THAT CONSENT.
Banning handguns via this bill, and via bills to come later, ALL firearms,
that ability to revoke consent will be removed.  Many of those in
government regard the population as a resource to be exploited for their
gain - little more than serfs to serve at their pleasure.  They are kept
marginally in line because of the knowlege that a few more things like
siezure of property when no proof of crime exists, killing a man's wife
and kid because he ALLEGEDLY sold a shotgun with a barrel ONE TENTH OF
AN INCH too short could result in something very ugly.  Disarm the
population, and that deterrent (chances of winning are irrevelent, the
COST is the deterrent) is removed.  The trend shows that if the public
were EFFECTIVELY disarmed, the Constitution and Bill of RIghts will
become so much meaningless paper.  The Constitution is largely ignored
allready, and the politicians are aware that the people are beginning
to wake up to that fact.  It becomes rather apparant that they want to
get the peons disarmed, and as soon as possible.  HCI used to say they
only wanted handguns, now its handguns and combat type long guns, next
it will be 'sniper rifles' - allready they are starting to claim that
sniping is a 'favorite tactic of gangs'.

feh.
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion