On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> Oh, James, James. Do you too buy into the silly idea that my right to buy a
> .357 or even an AR-14 protects me against tyranny, that the Michigan Militia
> would stand a chance against the 101st Airborne if it came to that? --jks
You mischaracterize the mechanisms of this kind of resistance. There are only two places where technology and raw numbers are a likely measure of success in battle - the air and the sea.
On the ground, other factors are much more important. Consider Vietnam, where a small, highly mobile, group of civilian militias eluded the superior US forces. Revolutionary battles never occur in a political vaccuum, and if you think that 101st Airborne wouldn't have defectors when ordered to fire on the Michigan Militia think again.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> It is not about arms but organization of people with arms. Guns
> ownership
> is not uniformly spread across society, only certain segments of society
> have them. Historically, the ruling classes were very effective in
> mobilizing that segment of society against the other segments which
> tried
> to use elections and civic institutions to advance interests of working
> class people. Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and Reagan are cases in point.
>
> In short, armed thugs usually undermine working class interests, not
> strengthen them.
>
> As I alredy said time and again, it is not about guns but people who
> have
> them.
Then you should examine in more detail the current gun control measures in the US and see whom they effect the worst, and who is championing their implementation. In short, the "liberals" (Clinton, Gore, etc.) and the NRA implement gun control which effectively disarms the poor and ensures that gun ownership is only available to those who can afford to drop $2000 for a rifle and pistol. Things like bans on "Saturday Night Specials" and import restrictions on rifles artificially inflate the cost and reduce the supply. An AK-47 is a simple yet beautifully reliable design and ought to cost about $75. But the current Assault Rifle ban means a pre-ban Kalashnikov in the US is going to run about $1500.
So I agree that there is a problem when only the ruling class has guns but you better look very carefully at who is orchestrating that situation and who is fighting against it.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Carrol Cox wrote:
> The gun argument gets raised to the metaphysical inane by failing to
> focus
> on the *kind* of regulation and the *kind* of guns involved. No
> "anti-gun"
> argument or proposal I know of includes hunting weapons (rifles and
> shotguns).
You are misinformed. First of all, many people hunt with pistols. Perhaps you don't know many hunters. But many around here (rural PA) hunt deer and small game with pistols.
> The debate is essentially over hand guns -- or, more
> narrowly
> yet, over carrying handguns (concealed or unconcealed) in public.
Well, yes and no. Handguns are a hot issue with some groups like HCI. But you overlook much of current gun legislation [in the US] involving so-called "assault rifles". First of all, assault rifles are an invention of the media and the powers-that-be. Meaning, something is an assault rifle if it looks frightening to certain people trained in the art of irrational fear of guns (for example, I have a friend who will shoot a 12 gauge shotgun but not a .22 Ruger rifle because the Ruger looks "dangerous" with its banana clips, scope, folding stock, pistol grip, and bipod).
Under the NFA (National Firearms Act), certain types of weapons are in effect banned, and require a heavy tax and fingerprinting and all sort of other nonsense just to own. Things like fully auto rifles, and the silly "short barreled rifle", any rifle with a barrel less than 16" and/or an overall length of under 26". Illegal ownership of an NFA weapon results in a $100,000 fine and a 10 year jail sentence.
The "Assault Weapon" ban from a few years ago banned certain types of weapons from import into the country, specifically military rifles from other countries, such as an AK-47 or an SKS, thus freezing their supply or only allowing US made weapons to be created. Anything manufactured or assembled "post-ban", i.e. after some day in 1994, can only have three "frightening features". These are:
flash suppressor pistol grip high capacity removable magazine folding stock bayonet lug
Guns from before 1994, "pre-ban", are insanely expensive. My AR-15 cost $2000 because it was pre-ban, instead of the $600 it should have cost had it not had the bayonet lug and folding stock. Apparently there is a violent crime epidemic of people being stabbed by attackers wielding unloaded rifles with bayonets, or something.
Currently the legislation is targeting the .50BMG, a high calibre (highest non-blackpowder calibre available outside of the realm of the NFA) rifle. A .50BMG rifle costs anywhere from $2500 - $5000, and is very expensive to shoot. It is useful for long range hunting of large game, and useful for long range sniping or shooting at armored targets. Why does such a weapon need to be classified as a destructive device and fall under the NFA? Is there a problem with gang-bangers doing drive-bys with .50BMG rifles?
The oft-mentioned "gun show loophole", another liberal invention, attacks collectors. Realise this - there is no gun show loophole. Every state requires enforcement of it and all Federal gun laws at any gun show. The "sawp meets for criminals" notion is a bold-faced lie. Basically, some states allow some types of weapons, such as antique rifles, to be bulk sold and purchased by private collectors without background checks, registration, etc. when those things would be requried for purchase of a new rifle, or a military style rifle. The gun show provides a convenient place for collectors to meet. Just realise what we are talking about here - a "batch" of 19th century finnish rifles chambered in a round that is so hard to find it has to be handloaded, for example. It is absurd to claim these types of weapons are used in a serious amount of violent crime, if any. Yet they are under attack.
> I would be concerned by any proposal to place stingent limits on the
> possession of shotguns. I do not own a weapon, but back in the late '60s
> when there was some reason to fear vigilante action against me, I did
> consider purchasing a shotgun. It is the only useful weapon for
> self-defense
> by anyone not trained in weapons and fearful of such attack in his/her
> home.
> And considering that black communities are under virtual military
> occupation, I can see why some black citizens would want to have access
> to
> rifles. However one judges these situations, at least they provide a
> more
> reasonable context for debate than the metaphysical "guns vs. no guns."
How useful is a shotgun or a rifle to protect you outside of the home? How about in the car?
Handguns serve a very specific self-defense role. They are light and easy to carry. Why don't police all carry shotguns when they walk the beat?
> As a personal opinon, anyone who keeps a loaded handgun in the house is
> a
> fool. Such a weapon is most apt to be used against some member of the
> household.
This is the kind of pseudoscientific hand-waving by gun control proponents that makes my skin crawl. No, it is not most apt to be used against some member of the household. An unloaded handgun in the dresser drawer is useless for self-defense.
What you mean to say is that anyone who keeps a loaded handgun where a child may unknowingly come across it is a reckless shithead. Those with parenting skills are able to prevent this by educating their children, and for those without, there are gun safes that can easily be opened in under a second to retrieve the loaded weapon should it be necessary.
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ The true method of knowledge is experiment.
-William Blake