Re: Gun Control & Totalitarian Atrocity

Michael Lorrey (
Sun, 07 Feb 1999 08:41:00 -0500

Paul Hughes wrote:

> 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?

Ah, so in general its pro-corporate pro-wealth, but not specifically toward the gun industry. That may be their intention, but I rather thank that they are likely to get civil war if they succeed. I know plenty of peaceful law abiding people up here who will become revolutionary guerrillas if the city slickers win. I don't think that this area is any different from any other rural area in the country.

> > ..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?

That is a good idea, and I'll make sure I pass it along to the Ruger execs that I know personally. They definitely aren't above that, as they recently banned the use of Microsoft applications in their offices in retaliation for Bill Gates donating $80,000 to the gun control referendum campaign that recently lost in Washtington State.

> 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. :-)

Thats OK. I tend to beleive that the corporate interests/patrons of the two parties are much more domestically focused, with dems supported by industries dependent on plenty of easily pliable, economically distressed or marginal individuals, both as a customer base, and as a source of cheap labor. (i.e. K-Mart, Coca Cola, Reebok, Nike, Ben & Gerrys, Target, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Beatrice) Repubs are supported by industries that have much more upscale customer and employee bases, though that has been eroding the past 6 years. There sure must be some industries that patronize the parties for favors overseas (Dole and Chiquita Bananas in central america, of course, the oil companies in the middle east...etc) Its not like we fought the gulf war over principle...

   Michael Lorrey
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?