('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:20:32 -0500
>From: Chuck Kuecker <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>At 01:01 PM 10/26/00 -0700, Joe Dees wrote:
>>The Million Mom March began as an idea in the mind of a single mom, and
>>spread like wildfire, as it resonated with a majority of the populace.
>>Actually, the well-orchestrated campaign belongs to, and always has
>>belonged to, the NRA, which is unparalleled in their foisting of
>>lies-with-statistics (the baby-drowning-in-buckets urban legend being a
>>prime example, which I have previously debunked), and which spends more
>>than twice as much as those who wish responsible and loophole-free gun
>>laws in this country. As far as getting all the guns out of this country,
>>that is, as far as I am concerned, a baldfaced propagandistic LIE, as my
>>wish is just to see them kept out of the hands of psychos, violent
>>crinimals and children, as far as is legally possible, without infringing
>>upon the rights of sane and law-abiding adults to purchase, keep and
>>bear. To have the resonsible armed and the irresponsible unarmed is in my
>>opinion the best of all possible worlds, and although this ideal is not
>>achoeveable in practice, I would like to see it approached as closely as
>>is practicably possible. Only children, psychos and violent criminals
>>would approve of children, psychos and violent criminals packing. BTW;
>>people praise George Soros' committment to marijuana decriminalization;
>>well, finally the responsible gun ownership lobby has their own George
>>Soros, and it is the NRA's worst nightmare, as their War On Drugs clone
>>War On Responsible Gun Ownership is now facing principled, popular,
>>committed and financed opposition.
>>I have returned from a week camping in the Blackwater wilderness area and
>>a week sunning and recuperating in a Fort Walton condo (without an armed
>>guard); Hava Happy, Y'all!
>Joe, Joe, Joe!
>The MMM is NOT, repeat, NOT, the simple brainchild of a concerned mother.
>Check out Donna Dees-Thomases credentials. She is NOT just a worried
>housewife - she is best friends with Hillary and Bill (or one of her
>relatives is) and she works as a press secretary for people like Dan
>Rather. Hardly an innocent. Do the words "politically connected" ring a bell?
>A majority of the populace? The numbers speak for themselves. Nationwide,
>they have about 250,000 show up to the Mother's Day rally. The press
>inflated the numbers to 750,000. Many participants interviewed stated that
>they came to see what the fuss was about, not because they supported the
>MMM. The MMM publicly stated a month or so back that they had "30 chapters,
>each with at least 20 members" nationwide, and that they were expecting a
>few "hundred" more. A check of the leaders of the MMM chapters turns up the
>same -male- name as the leader of many of them. Obviously, they do not have
>a majority even of women supporting them as members.
>The Northbrook, Illinois chapter of the MMM, run by a man, boasts four (4)
>members in a town of over 30,000. At a recent hearing on banning handguns
>in Northbrook, they had three speakers for a ban versus about 50 against
>any more "gun control".
>The MMM, for all its' grass-rootedness, has anonymous donors who sent
>multi-million dollar checks. Corporate sponsors. Ex-Secret Service agents
>as "security advisers". Pre-printed, professionally designed literature,
>banners, buttons, flags, and whatnot. This is a packaged, manufactured
>movement trying to disguise itself as "grassroots".
>The NRA, on the other hand, receives most of its' operating budget from
>its' members, like myself and almost four million other Americans.
>The MMM's tax-exempt status came under fire, as they were supposedly not
>allowed to be politically active under their original charter. They
>switched tax horses quickly when this was pointed out. There has been no
>official probe, that I have heard of, into this breaking of tax laws. If
>this had been a pro-rights group that had pulled the same stunt, I have no
>doubt that the IRS and Janet Reno would be all over them.
>Are you any relation to Ms. Dees-Thomases, by the way?
AFAIK, no; I am, however, a distant cousin of Morris Dees, of the Southern Poverty Law Center. That she knew how to organize such an event and garner support made it possible; I doubt if most people possess such a Rolodex. It was, however, from what I (and you) know, her idea, though.
>Handgun Control, Inc. has publicly stated more than once that the ultimate
>goal is removal of all privately held weapons. Dianne Feinstein and Charles
>Schumer have said said the same numerous times. It is a public front that
>the anti-gunners use to gull the undecided into thinking that the
>"reasonable" gun control is all they want. The registration or banning of
>handguns is just a first step. The anti-gunners want to nibble the
>Constitution to death, as it is inconvenient to have to put up with free
>speech, getting warrants for searches, etc. They just want to trash the
>works - and unless they can disarm the public, they can't succeed with the
>rest of the agenda.
Paranoia and disbelief are powerful weapons used both by and upon the Right. It is stated upon the HCI website that they are not attempting to ban handguns for the general populace, and the Handgun Safety coalition expressly comes out in favor of the right to keep and bear.
>The "lie" that IS a lie, is that they would get "all" the guns out. They
>would not try to disarm the police, or the military - those functions are
>required to maintain order over the other group who will never be disarmed
>- the criminals. Obviously, it is physically impossible to rid the country
>of guns, and it will also be physically impossible to enforce "gun control"
>to the point where the bad guys cannot get weapons.
I already stated that perfection was impossible, and that all the psychos, violent criminals and children could not be prevented from obtaining guns, but the perfect does not have to be the enemy of the good. If the gun show loopholes were closed, a LOT of the psychos, violent criminals and children would be so prevented without infringing upon the rights of sane and law-abiding adults to purchase, keep and bear, and, while not perfect, that's a GOOD thing.
>Anyone who buys into the myth that "gun control" is either necessary or
>will result in less than the total destruction of the Second Amendment in
>the US is living in a dream world.
This is an unproveable doctrinaire and dogmatic assertion of belief, neither more nor less, but eminently expected from you.
>You are right - it IS a "War On Responsible Gun Ownership" and it is being
>run by some of the same people who are responsible for the War On (some)
>Drugs. It seems that sometimes the WOD is being used as a lever to further
>the War on Guns.
The WOD, and the street response to it, has been responsible for much of the violence that has led people to want to keep guns out of irresponsible hands, including those defending their streetcorner turfs against competition via wild fire.
>Finally, if someone can show me a method that keeps the guns out of the
>wacko's hands WITHOUT destroying my right (and your right) to defend
>ourselves, I would like to hear about it. So far, all the present laws have
>done is restrict my options, reduce my safety and waste my time.
Not a purchase-prohibited registry instantly accessible to background check; you as much as admitted as much in an earlier post.
>I have taken enough Extropian bandwidth on this subject. From here on, if
>you want to continue the argument, please meet me at
>firstname.lastname@example.org. I promise not to post on this subject again unless
>there is a discussion that seems less like hitting my head against a brick
Sounds fair to me.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT