Re: Guns [was Property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 28 May 1999 13:30:23 -0500

Date sent:      	Fri, 28 May 1999 07:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Brian D Williams <>
Subject:        	Re: Guns [was Property Rights]
Send reply to:

> From: "Rick" <>
> >One thing that I have to say that has REALLY got on my nerves is
> >the following:
> >After the latest shooting at Colombine in CO, CNN had a guy
> >(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.)
> >Well, the guy basically said that if the authorities attempted to
> >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.
> Bad news Rick, you can add me to that category, until the second
> amendment is repealed, nobody is taking my guns, period.
If you're convicted of beating your wife or kids, criminally assaulting someone, or go dangerously nuts, and refuse to subsequently relinquish them, I will shed no tears when they're pried from your cold dead fingers, but rather heave a sigh of releif that you died before you could kill me or mine.
> >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.
> Not paranoid in the slightest, pragmatic. I have the right to
> protect myself, and will do so, period.
As does society, including from you, if necessary.
> >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.
> If you do not wish to own a gun and be responsible for your own
> protection, that is your choice, but you do not have the right to
> make that choice for me.
Your own choices, if unwise, can abrogate that right. If you're responsible, no problem. If you're not, BIG problem.
> >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 ...
> Alarms rarely stop anything but the simplest burglars, sniping the
> phone line (easily accessible) renders most useless.
That's what burglar bars (which I have) are for (and yes, with quick inside openers in case of fire).
> 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.
Just remember that you're responsible if you decide to "happen" to anyone without just cause.
> >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.
Forget repealing the 2nd amendment; just keep the guns out of the hands of those who by their actions have proven that they don't deserve to be allowed to carry them.
> In all the recent incidences, numerous gun laws were broken,
> passing more won't stop them.
Then you shouldn'y mind them being passed, if they won't make a difference one way or the other, ay?
> 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.
The perps also were gun-toters on prescription mind-altering drugs. People like that should be forbidden to possess guns if a statistically significant correlation with an increased risk of wrongful shootings can be established.
> >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.
Well, I think Bambi is delicious!
> >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.
A safer world is safer for all, and if the NRA has to be dragged kicking and screaming along as society takes the rational and reasonable steps of denying gun ownership to the mentally deficient and/or deranged, violent criminals, wife and/or child abusers, and children, then so be it.
> Brian
> Member, Extropy Institute
> Member, Life Extension Foundation
> Member, National Rifle Association
> 1.800.672.3888
> Version: 2.6.2
> iQCVAwUBN06uHnsfmVh/uI7xAQFIVgP8DEqWi4CBtwHDPr4iTgutSvrZQji9HfQs
> SCbCUw50Ndcek3O/PPQLyK3qZClbbezTJIPOqv/8HIoDs0hVVY0ACYHf1Kq0nr7P
> 5tTi2hgvPlpMXbLWHlxx+cxj2cwC6DhaXizV+BjhEwZVN25wQIr3V7vrMA4AD/GP
> 36YB1obIJ0U=
> =YoBu