🚀 go-pugleaf

NOYB wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jul 1999 22:48:40 GMT, "David Geesaman"
> <gees...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> 
> >       I'd like to agree, but banning guns is an ineffective short term solution.
> > I disagree with a gun ban because of principle, but I also believe that a
> >gun ban won't work.  It will only remove guns from law-abiding citizens
> >like you and I.  Banning guns from criminals would be even bloodier than
> >our current situation and offer no short-term solution, much less a
> >long-term solution.  That a gun ban would not work has been hotly debated,
> >but I will sum up my most powerful reasoning by saying that laws do not
> >change lawbreakers.  There are many historical examples of this, past and
> >present, and guns would be no exception.
> 
> Let me set this straight.  I'm against weapons of destruction.
> Pistols in my view are just that.  They serve no other purpose.  I
> don't believe they deter crime.   In my opinion, they are the bane of
> our society.  It has gotten to the point that children are shot by
> police officers because cops fear for their life so much that a toy
> gun illicits a death warrant.  Why is our culture so obsessed with
> guns?  Why do we NEED to have them?  I for one think it's simply
> ridiculous to think that we are better off with them than without
> them.
> 
> You say we would be removing guns from the innocent and leaving the
> guilty armed.  In the short term, yes.  That's true.  However, a ban
> on guns could possibly work.  

	And you believe that we should 'test' this out on our entire nation?  That we
should jeopardize the safety of each of us and our liberities by guaranteeing
criminals and lawbreakers a huge advantage?  That we should permanently ink out
new laws and dump huge amounts of money for decades, just so that we can attempt
to treat a symptom of the underlying illness?
	The reason that we have violence and irresponsibility does not lie within the
steel of a firearm.  It is in the minds of our people - and the only thing that
can change how we think is by interaction.  This disease has no vaccine, no
antivenin.  It is more pervasive than the millions of guns in this nation.
	Lets not undercut the framework that has secured this country for two centuries
for the sake of 'why not?'.  Gun controls should only be implemented with a
complete understanding of the scope of such a change.

> If the guns, ammunition, and supplies
> are banned it wouldn't be long before most criminals wouldn't have
> anything to shoot.

	

> Sure, big time drug smugglers, and bank robbers
> may have access to some form of ammunition, but your local crack
> addict will not.

	Yet your local crack addict has easy access to the most controlled substance in
this country - this statement is contradictory.
 
> Considering that most crime in this country is not committed by big
> time gangsters, I believe a gun ban will work.

	Big time gangsters didn't exist until the doors were opened for them by the
opportunity of Prohibition.  Big time gangsters still exist in the form of drug
cartels - the only difference is that they live elsewhere, and their work in
this country is carried on by peons.

> >> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?
	
	I hope that no one ever buys a gun for emotional reasons.  This is why I favor
waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory training.

> >
> >       I hope my discussion didn't appear patriotic.  Patriotism is an old trick
> >designed to rally people based on emotion.  There are two ways to make a
> >decision: emotion and reason.  Both have their place.  I believe that
> >emotional decision making has no place in our laws.  Furthermore, I don't
> >agree with writing laws to fix short-term problems.  Laws are never
> >removed, and they eventually get in our way (e.g. the New Deal).
> 
> Emotion is what our constitution is based on.

	http://www.usia.gov/usa/usa.htm/facts/funddocs/consteng.htm
	The Constitution is a document of 7 articles which describes the framework of a
form of government.  The Bill of Rights is the first ten Amendments (additions)
which documents ideas that are not specifically tied to governemental
organization.  I'd hardly call it an emotional expression.

> It's what "rallied" the
> people against tyranny.

	The Constitution was written decades following the successful revolt of the
colonies.

> The Boston Tea party was not a reasonable
> action.  It was grounded strongly on emotion.  It was used as kindling
> to ignite a passionate outcry against the throne.
> Without emotion, there is no reason to change.  

	Reasoning and logic make us question.  Careful thought and planning prepare us
for what we may feel needs to be done.  Emotion only tells us when to act.

> A reasonable man, would not take on
> Great Britain.  Only one with a strong faith in God, and knowing that
> what he is doing is for the benefit of his children and his country.
> That is patriotism!  

	I'm not particularly patriotic, myself.  I'd rather focus my love and emotion
on better things like my family and spouse.  Fervent patriotism is a dangerous
state of mind.

> That is why we have rights.  That is why our
> country is strong.  Not because some of intellectual debate.

	The Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) were drafted by only a few
men in their private quarters and later approved by a body of delegates. 
Emotion played a role in our revolution, this is true.  John Hancock may have
fervently signed the Declaration in a gaudy and emotional style, but his emotion
was not a factor in its composition.  The principles in our founding documents
were not created by emotion.

> I am a patriot, and my decisions are based on my love for my country,
> and her children.  Guns are a pestilence.  They are turning our cities
> into warzones, and our schools into crime scenes.  They have no value
> in our country.  Except to commit murder.

	And restore order.  The underlying principle is that those who restore order
are not just the police or armed forces.  The second amendment states that each
of us has the responsibility and freedom to help maintain that the rights
outlined in the Bill of Rights is upheld.  Right now, I don't feel that citizens
need to intervene (or resort to force) more than in rare occasions, but then
again, we are fortunate that we rarely have our lives and rights threatened.

> If you can't see that, I'm sorry.  You have your belief, I have mine.

	I clearly see your view.  However, it is not that of the Constitution, or
myself.
 
> >> It sounds silly I
> >> know, but I fear that we must relinquish certain rights to protect us
> >> from ourselves.  Americans have become their own worst enemy.
> >>
> >       I agree that we are our own worst enemy.  People do not become responsible
> >by insulating them from responsibility.  It's not fun believing in the
> >right to keep and bear arms, but its the only thing that makes sense.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a joke.  

	I don't find any of this thread to be a laughing matter.  Government and human
rights strike me as very sobering issues.

> Should the US decide to declare
> facist rule, and enforce it with blood do you think we the people
> would have a choice?  Not a chance.

	Look at revolutions in history.  Hypothetically, should the US decide to
establish militant control, they would control the cities - where a small group
of well-armed and organized solidiers could keep watch many people at once. 
They would not control the countryside - there just aren't enough soldiers or
eyes to watch it all.  Guerilla warfare would be the primary strategy, and it
would not be a decisive, win-all confrontation.  If I lived in sparsely
populated place, I would have an excellent opportunity to make a difference. 
It's in the history books, and this is partly why the most successful
revolutionaries are those who understand history well.

> We are a country divided.
> Divided on every issue from birth control, to capital punishment.  Our
> people vary from the politically correct, to the anarchistic gun
> toters.  

	This 'anarchistic gun toter' that you have envisioned is really strange.  The
reasons that I cite the freedom to revolt is not for anarchy's sake - it is to
reestablish a more effective government.  There are many ways to do that - and
force is the last of all resorts.  It is the least likely way for this country
to reorganize - but only if this choice is available.  If you remove the power
to use force, you open the door for government or other powers to remove all of
the other more civilized options.  Hitler knew this well, and leveraged things
carefully and effectively, knowing that he had disarmed the populace should some
of them be pushed far enough to consider a forceful response.

> What makes you think that for one instant.  All of the sudden
> the people of the US would turn around and unite for the common good?

	No.  I imagine something more along the lines of our first revolution -
powerful, wealthy, idealists who used their power to establish something strong
and lasting.  They did not take control of the country - they merely set it into
motion.  They only ended up serving terms in office because the people wanted
them to.

> I'm laughing out loud thinking about it.  Heck, if Uncle Sam decided
> to pull "Friends" half of america might revolt, but increase their
> taxes and everything's fine.

	This is why some issues spark emotional response, and other issues evoke
reasoned thought.

> Guns are a problem that we could do without.  The sooner we eradicate
> them, the better off we'll be.

	I see guns as one of the tools that problem-makers happen to use, along with
media, money, and everything else.  You just can't cure a cold by stopping the
runny nose.

	Dave
	 
> --------------------------
> NOYB [SC]
> Remove xxx from my address to reply