Re: Gun Control & Totalitarian Atrocity

Paul Hughes (
Sun, 07 Feb 1999 02:22:07 -0800

Michael Lorrey wrote:

> I don't see how you can describe a legal jihad against the gun manufacturing
> industry as some sort of smokescreen to perpetutate corporate interests.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant to say that the legal system generally is set up to benefit the rich and *their* corporate interests. Eliminating guns disables a population that is becoming increasingly less tolerant of *their* system. A disarmed society is an obedient society. A society where only the rich can carry, is a society benefiting the rich. I think that is pretty obvious don't you?

> ..If the
> gun industry goes out of business, the certainly don't gain anything. If their
> products are taxed at several hundred percent rates, this will not only reduce
> market demand, but their ability to make a profit, which also goes against
> corporate interests.

Tell me Michael, why haven't the gun manufacturers gotten together to create their own boycott organization? I mean common, why haven't Ruger and Smith & Wesson and the other gun manufacturers put aside their competitive instincts long enough to realize that if they cooperate they can survive as an industry rather than watch themselves be run out of business through increasing regulation? If Cleveland decides they'll no longer allow guns in their city, then the gun manufacturers can retaliate by refusing to sell any guns to their law enforcement as well. Such retaliation would quickly turn the table back in their favor. If it *is* in their corporate interest, why haven't they done this Michael? Such a tactic is so obvious, why have they ignored it? Is continuing their business as usual into oblivion in their corporate interest?

In regards to the Democrat vs Republican run CIA, I was attempting to be tongue-and-cheek by pointing out that both the Democrats and Republicans have their rhetoric and methods, but the end result is the same under either - a lessening of liberty for those under their rule. Sorry if you took it as an in depth analysis of 20th century intelligence community activities - something I'm won't pretend I'm knowledgeable enough to do. :-)

Paul Hughes