-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: "Rick" <Rick@cyborg.force9.net>
>One thing that I have to say that has REALLY got on my nerves is
>After the latest shooting at Colombine in CO, CNN had a guy
>Well, the guy basically said that if the authorities attempted to
>the following:
>(member of NRA) who looked professional enough, suited like a
>normal businessman and asked how he would feel if Congress passed
>new gun laws to help prevent such incidents from happening again.
>(Many of you may have seen the same clip.)
>take any of his weapons away he would open fire and stand his
>ground. Lets have a summary on the logic of that shall we ... this
>apparently average normal person would rather shoot and kill
police >officers doing their job than have his precious killing
tool taken >away. Totally unwilling to compromise about any changes
in the >laws at all.
>Before people start countering what I am saying, getting hostile
>and start bitching about freedom, let me state my opinions so you
>know where I am standing. I believe people have the right to
>protect themselves, with guns if need be in special circumstances,
>but I don't believe that everyone should have the right to own one
>or gain access to one so easily. This is NOT about freedom, hell,
>you don't need to brand a gun to be free and I really wish people
>would stop making that assumption. Just because every other
>country in the world doesn't have teenagers killing each other
>every 2 weeks, it does not mean they are slaves! One word -
>paranoia.
>To support my point I state this: The guy I was just referring to
>who stated he would rather kill a police officer (who most likely
>has a wife and family) or other law enforcement officers than have
>his gun taken away SHOULD have his license revoked for saying that
>and have his weapons taken away as he is talking like a potential
>killer and is clearly a threat to the general public from my
>perspective. In the US, most people who go around saying "I have
>the constitutional right to carry guns" appear unstable and
>trigger happy. And THAT is the reality of it. Considering these
>>rights were created in a time where it was alright to blast
>people, its about time those that believe everyone should have a
>gun should wake the hell up and realize that that was then and
>this is now.
>Most people who claim they have a gun for personal protection have
>very little need for that claim. Unless you work for the
>government or some other agency that MAY put your life at risk or
>threat then chances are you have no need for a gun. But what
>about home security? Bullshit! Guns can be expensive not to
>mention the ammo ... why not spend that money in investing in
>better alarm systems and top quality locks for your home and
>windows? Invest your money in a silent alarm connected with the
>local police department. But ohh no, that would take away the fun
>of blasting the gun toy at an intruder ...
The police? Fine if that's what you want, and they happen to be available, of course they're not responsible if anything happens to you.
>If freedom comes at the cost of the lives of dozens of kids every
>month, then screw it, I support the government and the security
>agencies that are trying to restrict such a free flowing
>gun-ridden society. New gun laws does not mean violation of rights
>(that were written when the earth was still cooling) or is against
>freedom, its against unnecessary death and reduction of terrorism.
>True, criminals could still get hold of guns, but the last 10
>incidents at schools usually involved guns from normal households,
>not illegally through the black market.
The second amendment was written long after the earth cooled, and most of the 20,000 gun laws in this country violate the second amendment. If your so determined, as we have pointed out you should start by repealing the second amendment.
In all the recent incidences, numerous gun laws were broken, passing more won't stop them.
It's interesting that the anti-gunners keep ignoring the fact that in both the most recent serious shootings, the perps were on prescription mind altering drugs.
>Shooting for sports is different, however that issue is usually
>used by some members of the NRA as an outlet for their delusional
>anti-government controlling paranoia.
The second amendment has nothing to do with sport hunting.
>The bottom line is, not everyone is a schizo with a gun, some of
>us actually realize that you can live and be free without the
>obsessive need to carry a gun. Of course new gun laws can be
>compromised, however, those who are against any new laws are
>simply not willing to compromise. So the situation will most
>probably stay grid locked.
We will fight to stop any new violations of the second amendment.