Re: Gun Control & Totalitarian Atrocity

Michael S. Lorrey (
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:40:22 -0500

Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 04:52 PM 2/4/99 -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >So it seems like the HCI propaganda is most probably a complete
> >smokescreen to justify their lobbying. Unfortunately the Clinton's and
> >the Gore's are touting the stats right out of the HCI press releases as
> >if they are fact, and the public is eating it up like gospel. Even
> >congressional Republicans are repeating the anti-gun spin.
> >
> >What is the Harm? you might ask. Well, for starters, people are being
> >prevented from being able to arm themselves against imminent danger,
> IAN: Also firearm ownership is a hedge against
> totalitarianism and the atrocities associated
> with it. The majority who assume that the Govt
> is too kind to perpetrate atrocities are woefully
> uninformed and naive!

Exactly. Witness the outpouring of lawsuits being filed by Democratic Party controlled city and county governments against the gun manufacturers for the 'costs' imposed by the use of guns in their cities where guns are already illegal (and have the highest crime rates). It looks like the final push is on, folks. The gun manufacturers are not deep pockets boys like the tobacco industry (note: $230 million in annual sales versus $30 billion for tobacco), and despite the fact that guns are perfectly safe when used legally, according to the accepted standards (i.e. don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot, etc) but cigarettes cannot be used safely in any manner. The cities and the law organizations doing work on their behalf are out to make guns illegal everywhere.

On a minor hopeful note, the Bridgeport lawsuit saw the dealers and distributor companies named in the suit released from the case by a judge. Now only the manufacturers are going to trial.

Countersuits are being filed against the cities by citizens groups for the reckless endangerment imposed by the local restrictions against law abiding citizens carrying guns as is their right under the 2nd amendment, saying that their private health care costs are higher because of the unsafe environment of Democratic controlled cities that ban guns, and that their human rights are being violated when they visit those cities by not being permitted to practice their 2nd amendment rights.

Proponents of the lawsuits claim that user authentication technologies exist that the manufacturers should be required to incorporate in their designs, ignoring the fact that those that exist are unreliable and easy to get around, while others are merely pipe dreams which are not available except in the laboratory. All of the technolgies will at the very least double the cost of a firearm, if not triple or quadruple.

They ignore the fact that this will make it impossible for the poor and working class folks to afford to protect themselves, while the rich can easily afford firearms even at such inflated prices. Thus the Democrats are favoring the rich and penalizing the poor, an interesting turnaround. The dems want this especially because they need a new lever to keep the poor imprisoned in the grips of the Democratic Party political machine, which still controls most big cities, now that welfare reform is allowing the poor and minorities to escape the bounds of the ghetto.

Fortunately, there is plenty of statistical evidence to prove the gun manufacturers innocent, and the manufacturers might want to countersue to recover rewards for the REDUCED fatalities thanks to private gun posession deterring crime.

I can guarrantee that if the cities win, then there will definitely be civil war across America. I know that the 900 employees of the Newport NH plant owned by Sturm, Ruger & Co. will not sit idly by, nor will the employees of SIG Arms, aslo based here in NH.

Mike Lorrey