High Voltage Shareware/high1.zip/high1/DIR3/GUNDEBAT.ZIP/GUNDEBAT.FAQ

Text File | 1994-01-31 | 184KB | 3,492 lines

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 30 19:48:42 1994

This is a work in progress so please make note of any mistakes and
report them to me.  I am particularly interested in more detailed
(verifiable) sources for the quotes that don't have them (and also for
the statistics which I don't cite references to).  Also, some of the
text and/or quotes may be in the "wrong" place and would fit better in
another argument.  I will take all advice under serious consideration
but unfortunately, I will not have room to give proper credit for each
contributor (so be aware that your help will be virtually anonymous).
Get back to me ASAP, please.

================================================================================

     HOW TO WIN DEBATES WITH HOPLOPHOBES;
A SYSTEMATIC REFUTATION OF GUN CONTROL ARGUMENTS
  version 1.0a (1-28-94) by Gregg E. Woodcock

This article is copyright worldwide (c) 1994 by Gregg E. Woodcock.

PURPOSE:
This is an in depth refutation of every gun control argument I have ever
heard or could think of.  The format of this article is that any
paragraph with a left margin of 3 spaces is the illogical gun control
argument.  All proceeding text up to the next double spaced line is the
systematic refutation of that argument.  I would suggest that wherever
you see the words "gun control" you should substitute the words "people
control" or "subject disarming" since the 3 are equivalents.  I chose
the sugar coated term since it is the most widely used.  I am proposing
that this be the unofficial "pro-gun" FAQ.

WARNING:
The pithy tone of this article is deliberate but it is meant to be
provocative *not* offensive.  Nonetheless, I fully expect the frequent
use of arrogant satirical analogy to offend a non-trivial number of
readers.  I apologize in advance if this somewhat derisive style offends
you (that's more than you get from Rush :).  I also apologize for the
USA centered arguments but international readers should easily be
able to remove these parts and still have a suitable domestic
argument.

COPYRIGHT/CREDITS:
I have gleaned a lot of the information included herein from electronic
articles posted on Usenet (the Internet "bulletin board" news service).
The ideas are roughly 20% mine and 80% Usnetter's.  The exact wording is
more like 90% mine (although the rephrasing is admittedly minor in many
cases).  I do not claim that any arguments I make are original (although
most are new to me) in any sense; they are far too obvious for them not
to have been used previously by someone else.  It would be impossible
(and unnecessary) to credit everyone whose thoughts I borrowed and
modified so I will simply give credit to "the Usenet Community" and
leave it at that.

DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION:
Reprint permission is conditionally granted to everyone.  For
publications, the conditions are that (1) I am to be notified before the
article is printed, (2) both I and Usenet (or Internet) must be
credited, and (3) I must be sent a copy of the publication in which this
article appears (customary free-lance compensation would be appreciated,
too, but is not required).  Obviously, publishers/editors will need (and
are granted) the right to edit the text; I ask only that it be clearly
indicated that the text was abridged or altered (no specifics).
Personal (private) use and distribution is unconditional as long as the
ENTIRE text is included (additions are acceptable provided they are
clearly marked as such).  Fair use applies for all; it is OK, to pull
small sections of appropriate text out to be used in your arguments with
gun grabbers without wasting your time by crediting the source.

================================================================================

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the
Constitution of the United States of America."
   -- Preamble to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
   -- The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
   -- The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, proposed
      September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791

================================================================================

   What is wrong with the argument, "what is wrong with <insert bad law
   here>"?

It is poor public policy to create laws and then try to justify them by
asking what is wrong with them.  We should *always* ask, "what is right
with this law?"  If a law does not help solve a problem then there is no
point in passing it.  If the law causes other problems or harms
law-abiding citizens then it is immoral on top of that.  It is no more
constructive for legislators to panic in a public crisis than it is for
an individual to panic in a personal crisis.  You should never react to
a situation merely because you feel that *something* must be done or
because horrible things are happening.  Even if you could prove that an
immoral law would actually be effective (keep in mind for the moment
that all evidence points to the fact that gun control laws neither
reduce crime nor save lives), the State would be horribly wrong to use
this as an excuse to infringe on the rights of its populace.

It is also wrong to do something just because "everyone else is doing
it" or because it is "popular" or because it "might" help; you don't let
your kids use that excuse, do you?  If your reaction doesn't help make
the situation better then it is more appropriate that you do nothing at
all; at least that won't make the situation worse.  People must remember
that government is a necessary evil but it is EVIL nonetheless.  It is
the nature of government to grow in size and oppression even when the
people "in control" have good intentions.  There is no situation so
horrible that government involvement and legislation cannot make it
worse.

"We Need Change!" -- Lenin, 1916; Hitler, 1933; Clinton, 1992

"... the ultimate authority... resides in the people alone."
   -- James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 46

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.  On
the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed
beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
   -- Frederic Bastiat

"The government of the United States, though limited in its powers, is
supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form
the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or the laws of
any state, to the contrary notwithstanding"
   -- Supreme Court Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall (1819 in McCullouch
      v. Maryland)

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
   -- Justice Louis Brandeis

rnmental
power, not the increase of it."
   -- Woodrow Wilson


   It's just common sense that gun control will reduce crime and save
   lives, right?

"Common sense" also says that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
This was so obvious that it wasn't questioned for centuries.
Experiments prove this assumption to be false just as statistics prove
that gun control has the counter-intuitive effect of *increasing*
violent crime instead of reducing it.  History before 1300AD indicates
that a world without guns would not necessarily be a utopia; without
guns, the strong can easily prey on the weak.

RKBA.003 - Homicide per capita in the U.S.
           Version 1.1 (last changed on 90/04/23 at 23:15:38)
           compiled by [e-mail]

DESCRIPTION
===========
Homicide by firearms per capita in the U.S. has varied up and down over
the years.  It has peaked in the middle of the 1930s (Prohibition),
declined thereafter, with significant dips during WWI, the Korean war,
and the start of the Vietnam war.  It has been in a decline again since
1979.

The per capita homicide (by firearms) rate is now at a rate equal to
that of the late 1930s/early 1940s.

A premise of gun control is that reducing the number of guns reduces
crime.  The corollary is that increasing the number of guns increases
crime.  The period after WWII, when millions of servicemen returned home
with hundreds of thousands of firearms as war souvenirs, shows a near
perfect flat line for the homicide rate.

However, the period after the passage of the most infamous anti-gun laws
(GCA68 - the Gun Control Act of 1968) shows a dramatic and fairly sudden
increase in homicides (by firearms) per capita.

What can be seen is that a sudden reduction of men in the age group of
18-24 (the age group that commits the most crimes) shows a sudden
reduction in homicides (as well as other crimes).  The three wars, WWII,
Korean, and Vietnam show these dips.

In addition, a plot (not shown) of all firearms-not-used homicides
(knives, poison, hands, feet, explosives, etc.)  shows a near identical
plot.  In other words, the TOTAL per capita murder rate for guns and all
others go up and down together.

CONCLUSION
==========
No correlation can be shown by U.S. national homicide figures that
reducing or restricting the number of guns reduces homicides.

GRAPH
=====
The Y-axis is 5 homicides/non-negligent homicides per 1,000,000.  The X-
axis is 1.2 years (squeezed to fit), starting at 1915.

                                                             1979
                                                                |
                                                                +
:::::::::::::::::##:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::#:::::::
:::::::::::::::###:#:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::##:::#::##:::::
::::::::::::##:::::::#:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::####::##::::::#:#::
::::::::#:::::::::::::#:::::::::::::::::::::::::::##::::::::::::::::#:#:
:::::#:::::::::::::::::::#::::###:::::::::::::::::#::::::::::::::::::::#
:::#:#:::::::::::::::::::::#:#:::#::::::::::::::#:::::::::::::::::::::::
:#:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::#::########::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+                                    +                 +               +
|                                    |                 |               |
1915                              1942              1967            1988

Sources: BOC75, BOC89, UCR82, UCR85, UCR87.

Gun control is based on the neurotic fear of accepting responsibility
for one's share of the community.  We have people in our community who
hate and want to kill.  This is a human problem involving human issues,
requiring our community of human beings to look at ourselves and our
society, and other human beings.  A man or woman who hates and wants to
kill will not become a peaceful, loving, productive member of society
merely because guns are illegal or hard to get.  A man or woman who
hates and wants to kill has been taught to.  Ignoring the human issues
and focusing instead on a material object is a pathetic act of denial.

Is it any surprise that gun control, a movement which is self righteous,
self absorbed, irresponsible, and materialistic is a product of the baby
boomer generation, a generation noted for materialism, selfishness, and
irresponsibility?  It offends me deeply that people in our society would
destroy the freedoms which *my* family fought and died in the revolution
to secure and which are as a result *my* birthright and responsibility,
merely to avoid the painful reality of their own responsibility to their
society.  Gun control is the abdication of personal responsibility for
the real problems in society; it is the loafers's approach to a solution
and the coward's cure for a guilty conscience.

"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding
empirical evidence."
  --Ann Landers, (inter?)nationally syndicated advice columnist and
    Director at Handgun Control Inc.


   What is wrong with a 5 day waiting period?  If it saves just one
   life, isn't it worth it?

First of all, the Brady Law (it has passed and thus is no longer just a
Bill) is a 7 day waiting period because the "5" day wait is 5 *business*
days, not counting weekends or holidays.  Beyond the Constitutional
issue, the main thing wrong with waiting periods (and background checks
and registration and licensign) is that they do no good.  Worse than
useless, they take resources to implement and enforce that might have
been used to do something useful.  A waiting period will by no means
will stop criminals from getting guns so why pass it then?  To harass
legitimate gun owners?  That's the only reason that's left.  Even Sarah
Brady has admitted that the Brady Law will not work, but only *after*
the bill was passed; now she calls it a "symbolic gesture".  Before the
bill was passed, she made speeches about how important it was and how
many lives it would save.  What an honest, upstanding American.

I would call a 7 day wait an infringement.  The Brady Law is therefore
clearly in violation of the Second Amendment.  It is unwise to invite
judicial review of a law that cannot possibly be ruled valid.  If
Congress wants serious gun control, it shouldn't waste its time by
chipping away at the Constitutional rights of the citizens while
pretending that the Second Amendment doesn't exist.  They should have
the guts to take the only "legal" approach and pass legislation to
repeal the Second Amendment (Representative Major Owens, D-NY, has
proposed such legislation at least twice; HJR438 in 1992 and HJR81 in
1993).

Because Americans have rights besides those enumerated in the
Constitution (which is confirmed by the Ninth Amendment), you would also
have to add another amendment which specifically denied the right to
keep and bear arms to cover your bases.  Even if this strategy
succeeded, it wouldn't really change the fact that the keeping and
bearing of arms is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT.  Repealing the Second Amendment
and outlawing guns would no more remove this right than repealing the
Sixth Amendment would make it OK to arrest citizens for any reason at
all and then or execute them without proving their guilt.

If you want a practical answer, what happens if somebody you know
threatens to kill you and repeatedly harasses you violently but not
poorly enough to allow himself to be arrested for it?  You feel the need
to protect yourself but your state only has CCW (no open carry) and
since you cannot conceal a longarm, you must get a handgun if you want
to continue to lead a normal life (i.e.  leave the house).  You go to
buy one but are told you have to wait 7 days.  X<=7 days later your
crazy acquaintance attacks you and you are unable to defend yourself
because he is bigger/stronger/better armed than you are.  You are dead
and ther back.

If you think this is too contrived to be realistic, try talking to the
friends and family of Bonnie Elmasri in Wisconsin.  She was being
stalked by her estranged husband despite a court restraining order.  She
was murdered along with her two children while she waited for the
handgun she legally purchased to clear Wisconsin state's mandatory
waiting period.  In her case, a Brady-type Law was not just an
inconvenience; it was a death sentence.  Now I ask you, was her life
worth sacrificing in the vain hope that someone else's life might be
saved?

"A right delayed is a right denied."
   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"They have rights who dare maintain them"
   -- James Rusell Lowell

"What do you mean 'wait fifteen days'?  This is America!"
   -- California citizen attempting to purchase a firearm for
      self-defense during rioting in Los Angelas, week of 30 April 1992

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that
cannot be repealed or restrained by human law."
   -- John Adams

"...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes
existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States.  In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a
free government.  It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief
Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws
whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.'
It is found wherever civilization exists.  It was not, therefore, a
right granted to the people by the Constitution...  The second and tenth
counts are equally defective.  The right there specified is that of
`bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'  This is not a right granted by the
constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence."
   -- U.S. v. Cruickshank; 92 US 542; (1875)


   Relax, it's not like they are going door to door confiscating your
   precious handguns; it's *only* a 5 day waiting period.

The real desire of the President Clinton (who has even publicly admitted
it), and several house legislatures, and the media, and apparently a lot
of ignorant paranoiacs who are so scared of guns that they probably
wouldn't dare pick one up, much less have the guts to defend themselves
with one, is to ban all gun ownership.  The modus operandi of government
intrusion is to start small by poking a little hole in your dam of
liberty.  When you get used to that infringement, they gradually
increase the aggression and before you know it you are chin-deep in
flood waters.

It's a standard tactic to institute regulation in phases.  They divide
and conquer; small groups at first, so the majority has no reason to
mobilize.  Then when you move on to the next group the next group, the
previous group has been sold out and isn't in any mood to defend the
people who hung them out to dry.  This is what Clinton tried to do in
his State of the Union address (1-25-94) by asking for the help of
hunters in passing a ban on "assualt weapons".  Pretty soon the
regulations are far beyond where they started and people forget it was
ever any other way.  Nobody protested much when the federal income tax
was instituted because it was "only" 1%.  Look where it is now in a just
a few decades; time is always on their side.  The lesson to be learned
is not to let the government get their foot in your door; have you ever
heard the story about the camel who just wanted to shelter his nose in
the tent?

We who oppose more regulations resent the idea that somehow our lives
are not worth defending.  It is sickening that in the state of New York
you can get a CCW permit to protect large sums of money but not to
protect your own life; that speaks volumes about the government's
priorities.  The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the
government, it is a natural right that was enumerated and *guaranteed*
in the Bill of Rights.  If the rulers succeed in taking away this or
other natural rights, then they have violated their covenant with the
ruled and the citizens are not only justified in revolting but it is
their sacred duty according to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.  That when any
Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.  ...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

It is the duty and oath of the President, all policemen, all members of
the executive branch, all members of the armed forces, all judges, all
legislators (in short the entirety of the government) "to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States."  I know that the right to
keep and bear arms has been infringed in a BIG way.  The Fourth
Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) and Fifth
Amendment (protection of private property against being taken for public
use without just compensation) have been routinely violated in the
pursuit of the "war on drugs" in an effort to raise funds and oppress
the public.  The citizens of the USA are so paranoid and panicked that
they are willing to give up slices of their rights (by allowing such
abuses to take place without outcry) in exchange for perceived
government protection.

In a society which is fighting for the selfish and gutless "right" to
physician-assisted suicides, I find it ironic that half the gun deaths
in the U.S. every year are "bullet-assisted" suicides (probably even
more since many are undoubtedly covered up by relatives and police as
"accidents" to avoid embarrassment and collect insurance) which the
government would like to take charge of.  It should sicken you that many
of your fellow Americans would rather have government licensed
professionals killing people instead of family members or individuals
euthanising themselves.  The state wants control over our very lives and
we are jumping at every chance to give it to them.

There is a crusade by the power elite to attack and usurp the natural
rights of the average citizen to have the means for self protection.
The people have plenty of reason to keep their properties, their lives,
and their self-respect, against the ill wind which blows no good.
Making guns hard(er) to get is only the first step in taking our guns
away completely.  Disarming us is only the first step in taking away the
rest of our civil rights.  When the government is going door to door
confiscating private firearms, it will be WAY too late to be getting
involved in the struggle.  If you don't think there is a well organized
political assault on the Second Amendment, just listen to what your
elected officials and various lobbying organizations have to say about
their intentions!

U.S. President Bill Clinton:

   "Only the police should have handguns."

   "People should not have better weapons than the police."

   "Gun control is not about violating your Constitutional rights.
   Everyone has the right to hunt.  We will not take that away."

   "If you do not need a gun, you should not have one."

   "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country?  Everyone
   gets a chance to have their fair say."  (May 29, 1993)

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno:

   "Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose."

U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan:

   "Maybe we can't get rid of the guns, but we can tax the ammo to death."

U.S. Senator Ira Metzenbaum:

   "The only thing a rifle scope is good for is assassination."

U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum:

   "No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking
   about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

   "Iith airport
   security ... all I want to do is get at plastic guns."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (sponsor of the gun and magazine bans):

   "It is a national tragedy that children are shot at home and in
   school.  Children find these guns in their homes.  Parents should not
   have guns in their homes."

   "The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the 2nd
   amendment.  Citizens no longer need to protect the states or
   themselves."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer:

   "Let's put some real teeth into laws regulating gun owners.  They
   should be licensed, finger-printed, show competence with their gun,
   and prove they are sane enough to use it responsibly.  They should
   have to renew their license every two years."

   "There may be other things that will happen later...  It may not be
   the end ... the bottom line is what we are seeking now is the Brady
   Bill."  (during an interview on CNN's "Crossfire")

U.S. Representative Owens:

   "How can we be a civilized society when there are so many guns?"

   "We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing & import of
   handguns.  From there we register the guns which are currently owned,
   and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and
   rifles with no sporting purpose."

   "It might take twenty years to get rid of all of the guns."

U.S. Representative Edward Feighan, referring to the Brady Bill (which
he introduced):

   "This is not only the reintroduction of the Brady Bill, this is a
   declaration of war against the NRA."  (at recent House hearings on
   January 3, 1991)

   "It's only the first step, it's not going to be enough ...  we've got
   to go beyond that, and I hope we'll do it this session of Congress."
   (during an interview on ABC News Nightline)

U.S. Representative Craig Washington:

   "This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a
   crack in the door.  There are too many handguns in the hands of
   citizens.  The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the
   Brady Bill."  (at the mark-up hearing on the Brady Bill, April 10,
   1991)

U.S. Representative William Clay:

   "The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need
   much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of
   handguns, except in a few cases."  (quoted in the St. Louis Post
   Dispatch on May 6, 1991)

"CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - An ultimate goal of the United
States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers
and burdens of armaments; ....  It is the purpose of this chapter to
provide impetus toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to
deal with the problem of reduction and control of armaments looking
toward ultimate world disarmament."
   -- US Code Annotated, 1990 ed, page 110, Title 22, Section 2551

"We urge passage of federal legislation--and meanwhile, in its absence,
the partial remedy of state law--to prohibit, with few and narrowly
drawn exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much
the way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons."
  -- Adopted by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Board of Directors
     in September 1976; see national ACLU policy #47, "Gun Control"

"Handguns should be outlawed.  Our organization will probably take this
stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we
get the other legislation passed."
   -- Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible
      Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star
      on September 19, 1969)

"It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private
individuals ... the coalition's emphasis is to keep handguns out of
private possession -- where they do the most harm."
   -- Recruiting flyer currently distributed by The Coalition to Stop
      Gun Violence, formerly called The National Coalition to Ban
      Handguns

"My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not
have guns.  But I feel even stronger about the average person having
them...most homeowners...simply have no need to own guns."
   -- Joseph McNamara, HCI spokesman, and former Chief of Police of San
      Jose, California

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
   -- Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a
      60 Minutes interview

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is
necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest
...  So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen the law,
and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a
slice.  Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United
States -- is going to take time ....  The first problem is to slow down
the increasing number of guns being produced and sold in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered.  And the final problem
is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition
-- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards,
licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally
illegal."
   -- Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. ("The New
      Yorker", July 26, 1976)

"We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong
uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which
is crystal clear and perilously present.  Let us take the guns away from
the people.  Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police,
and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.  And I would look
forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to
carry a sidearm."
   -- Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner, and
      now a member of Handgun Control's National Committee, during
      testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime
      Commissions

"I don't want to go for confiscation, but that is where we are going."
   -- Daryl Gates, Police Chief of Los Angeles, California

"First the Nazis went after the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not
object.  Then they went after the Catholics, but I was not a Catholic,
so I did not object.  They they went after the Trade-Unionists, but I
was not a Trade-Unionist, so I did not object.  Then they came after me,
and there was no one left to object."
   -- Martin Niemoeller (Dachau, 1945)

When they came for the 5th Amendment,
I kept silent because I am not a criminal.
"When they came for the 4th Amendment,
I kept silent because I am not a drug user.
When they came for the 2nd Amendment,
I kept silent because I do not own a gun.
When they took the 1st Amendment,
I could no longer speak out."
   -- Unknown

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.  In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
unchanged.  And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of
change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of
the darkness."
   -- Justice William O. Douglas

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect every one who
approaches that jewel.  Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force.  When you give up that force, you are ruined."
   -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the
      ratification of the Constitution on the necessity of the right to
      keep and bear arms


   Gun control is no different than how the government limits your
   rights in the <insert 1 of remaining 9> Amendment such as the...

   ...First Amendment which guarantees the Freedom of Assembly.  Most
   municipalities require a parade permit to hold a parade.

Most municipalities also require a permit (CCW) to carry a gun in
public.  This analogy fails because you don't need a permit to stage a
parade on private property.  You can even have a major rock concert on
private property if you wish, as long as you don't disturb your
neighbors.  To reverse the analogy, how would you like a 7 day waiting
perioion so the government can check to
make sure that everyone there will get along well enough to not endanger
one another?  It would be for your own good...

Permits of this type are mainly used for raising funds and for liability
purposes (who pays if you trash the place or if you deliberately incite
a riot) and so they have a valid purpose.  On the other hand, refusal of
such a parade permit has been used to suppress thought.  During the Free
Speech Movement in the 1960s over at Berkeley, the protesters were upset
at the actions of the the school but were refused a parade permit by the
government and threatened with arrest (they marched anyway).  If these
permits can be arbitrarily denied, then the power to license can be
abused.

   ...First Amendment which guarantees the Freedom of Religion.  The
   Supreme Court has long asserted the "separation of Church and State"
   which prohibits prayer in schools.

It is also illegal for a child to take a firearm into a public school.
This analogy fails because, once again, we are talking about a public,
government sponsored, institution.  The removal of religion from
(public) schools was done on the premise that any religion in a
government institution could be construed as an endorsement of that
particular religion and a rebuking of all others.  This separation was
instituted to *preserve* the Freedom of Religion (although I personally
disagree with this argument; it has merit).  To reverse the analogy,
would it be OK to require individuals to only practice their religion(s)
on Sundays?  Who really *needs* to pray on Tuesday, anyway?  How about a
7 day waiting period to buy a bible; after all you might be the next
David Koresh trying to start a dangerous cult?

   ...First Amendment which guarantees the Freedom of Speech.  You
   can't, for example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

It is also illegal to discharge a firearm in a theater (or other public
place) when there is no justification for doing so.  This analogy fails
because you are allowed to keep your voice while in the theater even
though there are restrictions on they way it may be used.  To reverse
the analogy, is it Constitutional to remove everyone's vocal cords or
wire their mouths shut before entering theaters so that nobody could
shout "FIRE!" inappropriately (ignoring the possibility that there
might actually be a fire at some time)?  How would you like a 7 day
waiting period to place a phone call while a background check could be
run to see if you and the called party are likely to be plotting a crime
or conspiracy together?

One person's right ends once it directly infringes on another person's
right(s) or unjustly harms another person.  Yelling "FIRE!" (or
discharging your firearm) is extremely likely to cause a panic in which
someone might get hurt (it will also adversely effect the sales of
popcorn and soft drinks which allow the theater owner to stay in
business :)  This "clear and present danger" is the purpose for these
valid restrictions.  My right to a firearm in no way endangers another
person nor interferes with anyone else's rights.

   ...First Amendment which guarantees the Freedom of the Press.  You
   can't, for example, print detailed instructions for building a
   nuclear bomb or place an ad in the classifieds section for illegal
   materials/services.

It is true you can't use the want ads to solicit or sell crime.  Neither
can you (legally) use a firearm to commit a crime.  This analogy fails
because you are still allowed to use the classified ads for other
legitimate purposes.  To reverse the analogy, how about if you were
required to wait 7 days while anything you post is reviewed because you
might say something with possible harmful potential?  How would you like
to see a ban on "assault" laser printers because they can be used to
print inflammatory/subversive materials in large distributable
quantities (after all, nobody *needs* to to print 30 pages per minute)?

There is no legitimate private use for a nuclear bomb.  It is an
*indiscriminate* weapon which will always kill innocents as well as the
intended targets.  Therefore the ONLY use for such a weapon (or, to a
lesser extent, knowledge of how to build one) is either military or
criminal (or both).  A properly discharged automatic (or semi-automatic)
weapon, on the other hand, can easily be used to kill hoards of enemies
while leaving innocents in the area untouched.

"If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the
government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not
free."
   -- Pol Anderson

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are
the peoples' liberty's teeth."
   -- George Washington


   STOP COMPARING THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS!  You can't kill
   someone with a book.

You must have missed _Mein_Kampf_ or are you waiting for the movie?
Also, read _My_Struggle_, by the Austrian author Shicklegruber for
another counter example.

"Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty;
the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us
to do something about it!  The second will be taken away first, followed
by the first and then the rest of our freedoms."
   -- Andrew Ford

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
   -- Samuel Adams

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals...  It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
   -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789


   What private citizen needs an assault weapon which fires <insert
   large multiple of 10 here> bullets in <insert number >= previous
   number / 2 here> seconds without re-loading?

o Normal response 1:  What is an assault weapon?
o Normal response 2:  What benefit will be gained by denying private
                      ownership?
o Normal response 3:  Korean shop owners after the first Rodney King
                      verdict.
o Normal response 4:  South Florida residents after Hurricane Andrew.
o Normal response 5:  The Central Park jogger could have used one.
o Normal response 6:  Since when must "need" be demonstrated prior to
                      the exercise of a right?

You never know how many attackers you might have to be defending against
and reloading a weapon takes very valuable time.  Besides, when did we
acquire the duty to justify what we do to the government rather than the
government justifying *impeding* us?  Where does the Second Amendment
stipulate "need", especially "need" where the *State* gets to decide
whether it is "sufficient"?  Give me one reason the government enforcers
need a such a weapon.  Does the State "need" these weapons?  If they are
unacceptable for the law-abiding, they are also unacceptable for the
State; or do we have a double standard here?

What need is there for a private citizen to own a Turbo Eagle Talon?  It
goes faster than 65 MPH (the maximum legal speed limit in the USA), it
has no airbag (is potentially unsafe to the user), it can't hold more
than 2 people realistically (is incapable of the "legitimate" use of
cargo hauling).  In reality, it's a useless hunk of over-powered metal,
capable of almost 3x the speed limit.  My wife has a mini-van.  Why do I
need my car?  Do I need a reason?  Before you answer this, remember,
it's a gas-guzzler and is over-represented in accidents.  Nope, sorry, I
don't need it.  In fact, it is hard to argue that anybody truly "needs"
a private automobile at all.  I do how ever, enjoy it for both
transportation and limited sporting purposes.  Racing on private
property, for instance.  Same goes for my evil, killer "assault"
motorcycle.

Why not discuss a ban on private "getaway cars" that can outrun our
under-equipped police and clearly have no lawful purpose, and result in
 per year when misused by young adults?
Surely simple recreation and enjoyment is not a legitimate need,
compared to the carnage on the streets we face every day.  So what if a
ban on fast cars in unenforcible and results in no improvement to the
current death rate, at least we've taken a step in the right direction.
So what if the criminal use of such vehicles is grossly exaggerated, and
accidents continue unabated as they have in every state and city that
has taken similar steps.  It still makes sense, right?  Now, presumably,
you wouldn't dream of taking away my vehicles, but nowhere does the
Constitution say I have a right to keep and bear hotrods.  It does
confirm my right to keep and bear firearms.

You can make a *much* better case for banning alcohol.  It kills more
people than guns and has no life-saving nor crime-deterring potential at
all; it is purely a recreational product.  Its use will adversely effect
every decisions and physical task that you attempt while under its
influence which makes you a accident waiting to happen.  Why aren't you
on that bandwagon?  Surely you don't mind giving up one of your
pleasures for the common good, do you?  You know what; I even think it
has been tried before somewhere...

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the State."
   -- Heinrich Himmler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ...  The SS,
SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
campaigning with them.  Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of
the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps
his weapon ...  must be regarded as an enemy of the national
government."
   -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.


   When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they had no idea
   how sophisticated and deadly firearms would become.

Breech loading weapons existed in the 1780s.  Ditto for guns with
magazines.  Ditto for semi-automatic.  (Look up the Ferguson rifle, for
instance.)  Then there is Puckle's multi-shot firearm (demonstrated
repeating firearm in the 18th century).  How brilliant does one need to
be to forsee increases in rapid fire and accuracy?  If we had phasers
like in Star Trek, then you might have a point; but we don't.  All we
have is minor incremental improvements to conventional 18th centry
firearms.  Besides, advancing technology does not limit the First
Amendment; why do you think it limits the Second?  Aren't radio,
television, telephone conversations, FAXes, and email protected by the
First Amendment even though the founding fathers had no idea that such
things would be invented?  Don't these technological advances make it
easier to commit crimes and to commit crimes on a larger and more
sophisticated scale?


   If gun control works for <insert socialist foreign country with
   strict gun control laws here>, why won't it work for the USA?

Let's ignore for the moment that there is no credible evidence to
support the allegation that gun control reduces crime in general, much
less gun-related crime.  It is "easy" to regulate the flow of illegal
weapons into England and Japan.  After all, they are islands.  One
problem the U.S.  faces is its relatively open boarders.  This past year
there has been a significant problem with Chinese refugees arriving via
boat.  In years past it has been the Haitans.  There is an incredible
influx of people from Mexico and South America through the U.S.-Mexican
boarder.  Every year we hear about the tremendous tonnage of illegal
drugs coming to our country through a variety of vehicles, one being the
cargo holds of ships.  Certainly if we cannot stop the flow of illegal
immigration and drugs into our country then how will we ever stop the
flow of guns?  In our nation's capitol, 20% of guns confiscated were
homemade; they don't even need to bother with importing them!.  Consider
the following comparisons between guns and drugs:

o Guns and drugs can both be imported.
o Guns and drugs can both be made locally.
o Guns are easier for the average person to make.
o Guns have a much longer working life than drugs.
o Guns and drugs will both be in demand even while illegal.
o Gun manufacturing sites are easier to pass off as legitimate
  manufacturing plants.
o Dogs can't be trained to sniff out pieces of metal which happens to be
  in the shape of a gun.
o People will be driven to acquire guns due to fear of losing their
  lives, whereas drug buyers only want to satisfy a craving.
o One gun will satisfy the average customer for far longer than a drug
  purchase will satisfy the average drug customer.
o Criminals will always have a strong incentive to acquire guns; they're
  the tools of their "trade"; drugs are just one product criminals sell.
o Many drugs must be manufactured in high-tech chemistry labs using raw
  materials (plants and/or reagents) which can draw attention to the
  operation; most guns can be manufactured in low-tech operations using
  machinery and raw materials obtainable anywhere for legitimate
  purposes.

It would seem that guns would be a *worse* black market problem than
drugs!  Will it be any easier to stop a cargo hold of weapons from
reaching our shores than one of drugs?  Banning gun ownership in this
country would make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to purchase
guns for either sport, recreation, defensive uses.  I have a gun for the
purpose of extending the life of myself and my family; it will only kill
if I decide it will.  A ban may reduce the number of homicides committed
by a few crazed individuals.  Then again it may not.  Such a ban will do
nothing to stop the arming of the drug gangs which have become
organized.  The same suppliers of their drugs could in fact supply them
with weapons, and I suspect this is already the case.  The weapons of
choice are fully automatic which are not generally available to the
public.  You cannot go into your local gun shop and by a fully automatic
UZI, AK-47 etc.  so how do you suppose those criminals go those guns?

Most of these countries (Germany and England for sure) had lower murder
and violent crime rates even before they implemented gun control!
England's homicide advantage over the US is smaller than it was before
serious gun control existed in either country.  It cannot be
legitimately argued that gun control has anything to do with their
"lower" rates.  The nations of the world have *many* fundamental
differences and you cannot compare one variable and ignore the millions
of others; the most valid comparisons are the ones where the variables
are the most limited such as comparing different U.S. cities with
opposing gun laws/philosophies.  The U.S. murder and violent crimes
rates have been falling despite high unemployment, racial tensions, and
a host of other problems.  The only regions not experiencing falling
rates are those with severe restrictions on guns.

If you must insist on cross-cultural comparisons, explain why Germany's
murder rate is *higher* than Switzerland where just about every
household is *required* to keep and bear fully-automatic rifles.  Mexico
which has stricter gun control laws than most of Europe, has twice the
U.S. homicide rate.  Hasta la vista, baby.  What's usually overlooked
in Britain is that the police do not deal with armed suspects; the RAF
special forces do.  These RAF forces do not take a large percentage of
its suspects to trial; must go straight to hell, literally.  If you're
willing to kill off all people who abuse guns in crime, you won't have
many gun crimes.  I'd prefer we just kept them locked up for 30 years;
it'd have almost the same effect.

Many "civilized" countries don't exactly stop with guns, either.  In
Japan, where guns are banned, aluminum baseball and softball bats were
banned for the same reason.  Mace is illegal in England and they
recently decided to ban steel-toed Doc Martin shoes because they were
being used in too many violent crimes.  Simply residing in a city
without registering with the police constitutes a crime in Germany, and
ial photo ID is grounds for arrest.  In
Singapore, you can be whipped for not having your hair cut short enough
and fined for chewing gum.  Most European countries are based on
cradle-to-grave socialism in which citizens are treated like helpless
children dependent on a nanny state for security.  That the same
societies ban guns is simply another manifestation of the overall
screw-the-individual attitude there.  The U.S. is already on this path
to socialism and oppression; in Washington D.C., "high capacity" water
guns are illegal for crying out loud!

If logical arguments won't convince you; how about some statistics which
show that, in fact, gun control *isn't* working in those countries?  The
following tables are from the study conducted by the Pacific Research
Institute.  They can be contacted at Dept.  GAH, 177 Post St., San
Francisco, CA 94108.

Country           % Households With Guns   Homicide Rate *
-------           ----------------------   ---------------
England/Wales **         4.70                   0.67
France                  24.70                   1.00
Norway                  31.20                   1.16
Switzerland             32.60                   1.17
Netherlands             2.00                    1.18
West Germany            9.20                    1.48
Belgium                 16.80                   1.85
Australia               20.10                   1.95
Canada                  30.80                   2.60
Finland                 25.5                    2.86
United States           48.90                   7.59

*Rates are per 100,000 population.
** Homicide rate does not include "political" murders.

Based on figures from two different sources:  Swiss Criminologist
Killias (average murder rates for the years of 1983 - 1986) and France
data derived from World Health Organization information 1980.

Consider the above table:  The only support for the anti-gun argument is
that the lowest murder rate is for England where only 4.7% of the
households have guns.  But this can not be attributed to low gun
ownership since the French murder rate is only slightly higher.
However, the rate of French gun ownership is more than five times
greater than in England.  Note:  The real English murder rate might
actually be as high or higher than the French.  The English artificially
reduce their murder rate by excluding "political" murder, (example:
assassinations by the IRA), whereas French and American rates include
all types of murder.

This brings up a further issue, If firearm bans reduce murder why is
"political" murder so much more common in Europe than in the United
States or Canada?  Further review of the above table shows the English
correlation between low gun ownership and low murder is mere coincidence
rather than a general rule.  The country with the lowest gun ownership
is not England but the Netherlands where only 2% of the households have
guns.  Yet the Netherlands has more murder than most other European
countries, including those with rates of gun ownership much higher, as
much as 12 to 16 times higher in the cases of France, Switzerland, and
Norway.  Those countries happen to be three of the highest European
countries in household gun ownership, yet they are also three of the
four European countries with the lowest murder rate.

Compare the murder rates for the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway.
They are nearly identical.  Yet Switzerland and Norway have 15 to 16
times more gun ownership than the Netherlands.  Now compare Canada and
Finland.  Both of these countries have rates of gun ownership that are
almost as high as Norway or Switzerland, but their murder rates are more
than twice that of the Netherlands, Norway, or Switzerland.  When the
full range of comparisons are made, no pattern of correlation appears
between high gun ownership rates and high murder rates.

The point of these studies is not that more gun ownership causes more or
less murder, but that it has no effect on either.  The kind of people
who will murder, commit armed robbery, rape, etc are going to to do so
with or without guns.  The argument that guns are necessary or useful
for murder, does not apply to legal gun ownership.  There are always
going to be enough illegal guns on the market to satisfy a criminals
needs.

Since the Firearm Control Act was brought in 1978, the number of
assaults with firearms in Toronto has quadrupled.

The anti-gun movement is always quoting the crime statistics of England,
saying that because England has extremely strict gun control they have
less crime.  How anyone knows how many people are killed in England with
firearms is an interesting issue, because noone compiles any
comprehensive statistics related to armed murder in the United Kingdom.
The English Home Office does compile some statistics relating to
firearms, homicides, but they exclude "politically motivated" killings,
so these statistics are cooked.  Since barely a day goes by without the
provisional IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Welsh National
Liberation Front or some bunch of loonies killing someone, these figures
are unreliable at best.

However, even these figures show an increase in handgun related crimes
between 1976 and 1988 on the order of 200%.  The Scottish home office,
which complies more reliable figures, tabulated an increase of 27% in
armed crime in Scotland in 1990 alone.  The most interesting part of all
this is that the largest increases in armed crime in the UK occurred
after the enactment of the 1988 Firearm Act, which banned the possession
of all center fire semi-auto and pump action rifles and most semi-auto
and pump action shotguns.  As the number of these guns, turned in to the
police were small in comparison to the number in circulation it is fair
to assume that many of them found there way into the hands of criminals.

Need more convincing that the secret to Japan's low crime rate is that
it is a police state?  Here is an explanation by J. Neil Schulman from
The Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment.

In a Column One story in the 2/27/92 issue of the \Los Angeles Times\
entitled "Victims of a Safe Society," the \Los Angeles Times\ details
how the relatively low rate of private criminality in Japan is achieved
by massive police criminality:  beating suspects so severely that they
are permanently crippled in order to obtain confessions, a massively
high rate of false executions and imprisonment, and virtually no
penalties for police who commit these crimes.

"Many foreign people think Japan is a highly developed, advanced,
democratic country, and it is," says Hideyuki Kayanuma, an attorney for
an American entertainer who was permanently crippled by Japanese police
who suspected him of drug possession.  "But especially in the field of
criminal justice, it's a Third World country.  There are no human
rights."  Civil-rights attorney Kensuke Onuki says, "It's almost like
'Midnight Express.'"

In addition to beating of suspects, sleep deprivation to achieve
confessions, and common torture of arrestees, the article describes a
Japanese criminal justice system with virtually no bail, strip searches
for traffic violations, and a conviction rate of 98% -- about that of
Stalinist USSR.  In contrast, of 12,615 complaints of torture and abuse
filed against police over the last 40 years, only 15 cases were tried,
and only \half\ of that 15 resulted in punishment for police officers.

Citing "a typical example," of Japanese justice, the article tells of a
day laborer released after 16 years in prison.  The laborer was coerced
into a false confession during six months of detention in three
different police stations outside Tokyo.  During that time, the laborer
says, "officers beat him on the head with fists, trampled his thighs,
and ordered him to 'apologize' to a photo of the dead woman as they
burned incense for her spirit in the interrogation room.  They
interrogated him for a total of 172 days as much as 13 hours a day."

Other methods of interrogation, according to the \Times\ article,
involve telling suspects that their families will suffer if they don't
  The
article cites human rights attorneys who have estimated forced
confessions to be as high as 50%.  Suspects may be held in custody for
up to 23 days with no charges, bail, right to an attorney, or court
supervision.

Nor is there much objection to this brutality by the Japanese public.
The Japanese Civil Liberties Union has only 600 members, as compared to
280,000 ACLU members.  Instead, says the \Times\ article, "most Japanese
place a high degree of confidence and trust in police and assume that
suspects under arrest probably committed the crime."

Those who wish to cite Japan's low murder rate as proof that gun control
works, had better think again.  And if after reconsidering the issue
they still advocate the Japanese approach, those Americans who value the
concepts of fairness and justice would do well to understand what the
goal of those who advocate gun control actually is:  the importation of
fascism to America.

"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave
them."
   -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of
arms.  The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection
of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising.  Therefore, the heads
of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all
the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government."
   -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation...  Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms."
   -- James Madison in Federalist Paper 46

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
   -- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the
      Federal Constitution


   The Bill of Rights specifically states and clearly implies that the
   notion behind allowing civilians to own guns is for the purpose of
   maintaining a "militia".  Our "militia" of today is our armed forces
   and police forces, not civilians.  The Second Amendment was written
   at a time of universal military service, service in which the
   citizen-soldiers provided their own weapons.  This time is long past.
   Besides, even if the militia does include regular citizens, the
   Second Amendment says they must be "well regulated".

You describe only half the militia; the armed forces, National Guards,
and (loosely) the police which comprise the "organized" militia.  As the
reference below shows,

United Stated Code (USC)
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
   (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313
   of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
   of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers
   of the National Guard.
   (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which
   consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the
   unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who
   are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

the other half, the "unorganized" militia *explicitly* consists of armed
civilians.  Furthermore, according to the (recently-repealed) Militia
Act of 1794, each member of the militia is *required* to keep a military
firearm at home, and practice regularly.  Article I, section 8, clause
16 grants Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, ...."  This is the real meaning of the term
"well regulated" in the Second Amendment; to enlist, educate, equip, and
otherwise enable the militia, not to restrict it.

Thus while Congress can organize and arm the militia, it is prevented
from disarming the people (presumably since the founding fathers foresaw
that the government would try to use the argument "if you want a gun,
join the organized militia; you don't need one") by the Second
Amendment.  The Second Amendment was added to make clear that regulating
the militia did NOT include disarming the public; the militia clause is
included as a *justification for* NOT a *limitation upon* the proceeding
operative phrase.  The congressional intent of the founders is clear.

Let us look at the original draft proposal of the Bill of Rights to the
U.S. Constitution which contained 20 proposed amendments that were
later condensed and ratified as the first 10 amendments to the
Constitution.  In this draft, the right to bear arms was spelled out
more elaborately than in the compact final version.  The intent of the
founding fathers is made quite clear in this, the 17th of the original
20 amendments:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is
the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State.  That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to
be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community
will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the Civil power."

The Second Amendment was written with the knowledge that the only way to
ensure the ability to overthrow a corrupt government is with armed force
(as the colonists did to the British).  The founding fathers wanted to
make DARN SURE the people maintained this ability.  The responsibility
to defend oneself from criminals and governments will never change with
time.  Congress has the power (not "right", by the way, since
governments have no rights) to regulate the militia as long as those
regulations don't infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear
arms."

Even if the *current* meaning of the word "militia" were as limited as
you would like it to be, it would not change what the meaning of it was
at the time the Second Amendment was written.  At that time, the
"militia" included most (if not all) of the public.  The Constitution
never uses the word "women" but frequently uses the word "men" (as in
"all men are created equal").  Does this mean that women were not
considered Americans by the founding fathers and therefore have no
rights?  Maybe a future Supreme Court will decide that the Third
Amendment means that it's legal to forcibly lodge troops in private
homes, as long as they don't bring any quarters with them.  Maybe they
will get sick of the Second Amendment defense and rule that it is OK to
take away our guns as long as they don't surgically amputate our arms.

Did you ever notice how the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are
obviously limiting the powers of the government?  Do you think the
Second Amendment would have been included if its intent was to do the
exact opposite and expand the government's powers?  Perhaps, the
phrasing is merely unclear in "modern" english.  Your semantic argument
is based on the grammatical correctness of interpreting the Second
Amendment to mean that *only* the militia has the right to keep and bear
arms.  I challenge that this is incorrect.  Suppose the Second Amendment
read:

"Deposed Dictators, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be restricted."

Would this mean that only deposed dictators are allowed to bear arms?
Obviously, the "militia" part of the sentence is a subordinate phrase,
not directly modifying the main clause.  As further proof (if english
se you to comprehend), it should be
mentioned that during the process of forming the Bill of Rights there
was a proposal that the right to bear arms be limited only to the
Militia.  That type of wording of the amendment was soundly defeated,
and is quite probably the reason we have such eloquent quotes from our
forefathers on the subject.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and
carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
  -- Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
     the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session
     (February 1982)

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United
States as well as of the States."
   -- US Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois

"The right of the people to keep and bear...  arms shall not be
infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..."
   -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
   -- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...
and include all men capable of bearing arms."
   -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
      from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

"What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment
of a standing army, the bane of liberty...  Whenever Governments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
   -- Rep.  Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at
      750, 17 August 1789

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American...  The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
   -- Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."
   -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house;
these altogether respect personal liberty..."
   -- Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals...  It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
   -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
   1789)


   The preamble of the Constitution says the the government must "insure
   domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense [and] promote
   the general welfare."  The Constitution also says <insert
   out-of-context Constitutional quote here>.  I think that the banning
   of private ownership of firearms is necessary to carry out these
   mandates.

The Second Amendment, by definition since it's an amendment, supersedes
all previous Constitutional provisions.  The Eighteenth Amendment which
outlawed alcohol comes before the Twenty-First Amendment which repealed
the Eighteenth; would you argue the validity of the first one while
ignoring the existence of the second?  Order of occurrence is very
important; the repeal, because it follows the prohibition, COMPLETELY
NEGATES its predecessor.  Ignoring these points, would you add the text
"through the use of gun control" to the preamble?  Would you also add;
 through the use of wire taps
 through the use of propaganda
 through promoting racial strife
 through the use of intimidation
 through the use of deadly force
 through restriction of religion
 through the ignoring of POW/MIAs
 through the revisionism of history
 through restriction of free speech
 through the use of the popular media
 through the murdering of WWI veterans
 through the murdering of Branch Davidians
 through the destruction of personal freedoms
 through the use of unconstitutional legislation
 through the invasion of Jean Marie Harell's house
 through the murdering of Randy Weavers family members
 through the use of radiation testing on unknowing individuals
 through the use of chemical testing on their own Vietnam Vets
 through forceful indoctrination of conformist attitudes on our children
 through a looking glass into your bedroom

All but the last one has already occurred; would you like them to become
legal so they could be employed at the whim of the government with
impunity?  If you *really* wanted the government to followup on this
"mandate", you would encourage them to write laws to help remove the
criminals from society instead of firearms.

Gun grabbers have the collectivist idea that the good of the individual
(his right to keep and bear arms) is superseded by the "good of the
whole".  There is a (mistaken) impression that more lives would be saved
if the individuals who use firearms to successfully defend their lives
were sacrificed "for the greater good" by taking those firearms away.
There are a couple of serious flaws with this thinking.

Saving innocent lives is a higher priority with most of us than saving
criminal lives (the criminals are the *only* ones who will benefit
substantially from gun control).  Lets say for, the sake of argument
only, that we can take away the right of self-defense of the "few" on
moral grounds that it will save some lives.  We have arbitrarily
condemned these few KNOWN innocents to death (those who would defend
themselves from criminal attackers), to preserve the lives of others who
are KNOWN criminals (the attackers).  Any other "benefits" of gun
control legislation should be analyzed with this undeniable side-effect
in mind.

By this logic, "society" can also decide to sacrifice a "few"
individuals who are able to contribute much needed vital organs for
transplantation into "many" individuals.  By sacrificing just one
person, we can save the lives of a dozen others.  The only problem is
mandatory organ and tissue registration coming soon as part of the
Clinton health care "package".

"The great object is that every man be armed.  Everyone who is able may
have a gun."
   -- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of
      the Constitution

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.  They are left in
full possession of them."
   -- Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?  Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress?  If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?"
   -- Patrick Henry

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by
the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
always distinguished the free citizens of these states...  Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America."
   -- Gazette of the United States, 14 October 1789

"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the
e it inviolate.  The people of the US
are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to
overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the
Constitution"
   -- Abraham Lincoln


   What is wrong with registering/licensing handgun owners?  You need a
   license to drive a car don't you?

Your trust in the government is dubiously misplaced.  How can you trust
a government which doesn't trust you?  Such records can be (and
historically have been) used to confiscate legally obtained weapons when
dictators come into power.  Allowing myself to be registered is like
law-abiding German Jews of the 1940s volunteering to get aboard the
trains to be "resettled".  We all know that the registration ride ends
up at the confiscation camp.  No thanks, I won't take that trip.

It is immoral to license a right; doing so changes it from a right into
a government granted privilege.  Privileges can be taxed, denied,
revoked or even eliminated whereas rights cannot.  The Brady Law allows
the arbitrary denial of permits, without appeal, and without
explanation.  This assures that states, counties, and city governments
will usurp the right to keep and bear arms, since they've already done
so, and they can continue to do so with the empowerment of the Brady
Law.

You do not need a license to *own* a car nor to drive a car on your own
private property; you only need one to drive in public (on public
property).  I would gladly accept licensing for CCW on similar terms;
would you?  I am in favor of mandatory testing and training as a
prerequisite for a CCW permit (like the ones required for obtaining a
driver's license) as long as the government is forced by the same law to
guarantee that no fees shall be imposed other than those absolutely
necessary for the administration of the law, and that no citizens will
be denied a permit except in objective circumstances exactly defined in
the law, and that iron-clad safeguards are in place to ensure that
permits are not arbitrarily denied.

In short, I want it to work just like driver's licensing works; when you
apply for a driver's license, they don't take down the license plate
numbers of all your cars do they?  As a matter of fact, to streamline
things I propose we distribute driver's licenses and CCW permits at the
same locations.  I wonder if the "Motor-Toter" Bill would break our
rubber-stamp President's "no veto" streak?

You know, I think it would be a dandy idea if all martial artists had a
permanent serial number tattooed on their arm, and were required to
register their movements with police.  We should work to "reduce access"
to martial arts since the largest category of weapons used in crimes in
the U.S. is "hands and feet".  Large, strong people should be outlawed,
and allowed to live only if they agree to be hobbled or starved to
emaciation.

"When reminded that the registration plan in Washington, D.C. was
enacted with the specific promise to gun owners that the lists would not
be used for confiscation, the bill's sponsor retorted:  'Well, *I* never
promised them anything.'"
   -- (Guns & Ammo, 12/76, P. 86)

"1935 will go down in History!  For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration!  Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"
   -- Adolf Hitler prior to confiscating all civilian firearms.


   What is wrong with requiring competency testing/training for firearm
   owners?  Many lives could be saved by avoiding tragic accidents.

Literacy testing had some good rationales, too.  Who could possibly
argue with making sure a person can read the ballot that he is about to
fill out?  But it was struck down because the potential for abuse was
*much* greater than the severity of the perceived problem that the test
was supposed to correct.  Well, there's a direct parallel here with gun
competency training.  About 23,000 Americans die from gunshot every
year.  How many are accidental?  A mere 1,200.  The other people died,
not because the wielder was incompetent, but because he was if anything
*too* competent.  Since accidental deaths due to motor vehicle use
outweigh accidental deaths due to firearm use by nearly 30:1, you will
naturally have no problem with similar training requirements prior to
the sale and ownership of motor vehicles, too?

This is all assuming that you are trying to prevent gun owners from
accidentally injuring other people; if you are trying to "protect" gun
owners from accidentally (or deliberately, for that matter) hurting
themselves, don't bother, we neither want nor need your help.  It might
be unfair but people have killed themselves throughout history by being
stupid; it's called survival of the fittest.  Only a liberal would think
he could repeal the law of natural selection.

So the question is, "Is the potential for abuse of mandatory training
and/or competency testing greater than the problem you are claiming to
correct?"  Damn straight it is.  When abused, these "helpful" laws
become back-door gun control and are blatantly unconstitutional.  In
Boston, you must score 70% (or more) on a standard B-27 target, with an
unfamiliar gun (whatever the examiner hands you); however, their police
must score only 55% to qualify.  Does that sound non-discriminatory to
you?

"Mandatory training" was the law in Rhode Island during the 70s.  The
state held the required class only once a year, and limited applicants
to 30.  If you didn't "know somebody," you couldn't even get on the
list.  "Mandatory training" is the law in California as of 1/1/93.  But
they "forgot" to appropriate any money for the courses.  Whoops.  Here
it is, 1/94, and they *still* have not figured out what the "mandatory"
course will consist of!  But even though it's undefined, it's still
mandatory.  "We don't give licenses to broads in this town," says the
Acton, MA chief.  "Sorry, we're out of applications," says the Chicago
PD, since 1982.  Michigan and Tennessee officials are in trouble for the
arbitrary denial of CCW permits.  Does this sound like good faith to
you?

Some laws require competency testing for use (carry), and some strictly
for purchase.  The latter are treading on dangerous Constitutional
ground.  A competency test to exercise a civil right; that should scare
you.

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would
do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
   -- Lyndon Johnson

"I do not want to live under a philanthropy.  I do not want to be taken
care of by the government....  We do not want a benevolent government.
We want a free and a just government."
-- Woodrow Wilson


   What is wrong with a ban on handguns (or all guns)?  We need to do
   something to stop the damage they are doing to our citizens!

A ban on handguns is a bandaid solution to a severed limb.  It will only
succeed in denying the access of defensive weaponry to law-abiding
citizens.  You may get some off the streets, but you will succeed in
criminalizing a large fraction of the U.S. population that are
otherwise law-abiding who decide their own safety or that of their
family is of primary importance and decide not to comply with a ban.
You are naive to think that a criminal will comply at all; it doesn't
really matter to them since the smuggling network already in place for
drugs will see that there remains an adequate supply for them.  After
all, they will need to defend their business against the police and
federal government (and "competitors").  Sounds like the prohibition era
to me and we all know how well that legislation worked.

A ban would presumably include the confiscation of the guns currently in
circulation.  Let's not forget about the Fifth Amendment which says (in
part), "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."  The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the
government may not deprive a person of a legally acquired property
without just and reasonable compensation.  Sixty million handguns at
$200 eo come from?  I
know, let's tax bullets to fund the confiscation program; it's going to
work for health care with cigarettes!

How can disarming a person who has no criminal record (not even
juvenile), no history of drug abuse, no history of alcohol abuse, no
history of mental illness, no hate for fellow-man, enough responsibility
to own several weapons and safely fire several 1000 rounds (miraculously
without ever hitting a person or animal just targets, cans, and
bottles), never involved with police (except for reporting crimes) help
solve the problems that you seem to be rightfully concerned with?  The
answer "Well, someday you might shoot me because I bumped you in a mall"
is not valid, since I actually only say "Excuse me" when that happens (I
was raised right).  So take away my guns; what have you really
accomplished?  All you have done is given an open opportunity for
someone to attack me without fear of retribution.

If a ban on weapons in the U.S. seems like a workable solution to you then
you haven't considered the entire problem.  It might work if you could
A.  Impose the ban
B.  Impose mandatory death or life sentences for violent first time
    offenders
C.  Close the borders to ensure to the public that the criminal
    component of society will not have access to weapons through other
    sources.
D.  Set up roadblocks and searches of houses to ensure to the public
    that everyone is in compliance with the ban, and to actually remove
    the weapons from the street.

Of course this would violate everybody's civil rights and does not seem
very attractive, and neither does "quick fix" legislation that will only
limit access to law-abiding citizens.

We would need to ban longarms, too, since the difference between a
longarm and a handgun is 5 minutes work with a hacksaw.  Even if we
could keep guns from reentering the country, do you really think we
could properly dispose of the guns we do confiscate?  According to the
BATF and Washington D.C. police, 40% of confiscated guns had previously
been confiscated by police or were POLICE ISSUE SIDEARMS but somehow
magically found their way from the hands of police into the hands of
criminals.

Many gun grabbers seem to hold the notion that criminals don't really
want to get guns, the guns are just there so they pick them up and use
them.  Not so.  They aren't that stupid or mindless.  They get guns
because they want them.  A robber does not care how many homes he has to
burglarize to get his gun; forcing him to pay $2,500 for a gun on an
inflated black market instead of $250 at K-Mart just means he
burglarizes 10 homes instead of 1.

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom.  It
is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."
   -- William Pitt, 1763

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages
for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from
men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no
remedy for evils, except destruction.  The laws that forbid the carrying
of arms are laws of such a nature.  They disarm those only who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...  Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
rather to encourage than to prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.  They ought to be
designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the
tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful
consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal
decree."
   -- Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764


   You don't need to protect your valuables with a gun; if you are
   robbed just hand over the loot.  All the experts say you shouldn't
   resist an attacker unless your life is in danger.  Trying to be a
   hero will just get you beaten up or killed on top of robbed.

Statistics have shown this advice to be incorrect and many educators are
taking note.  Even if I believed this advice, it does not preclude me
from bearing a firearm as a last resort.  If a robber says to me, "give
me your wallet" and I give it to him and he then says, "get in my trunk"
or "I'm going to kill you", I still have options.  I have the
opportunity to try your advice first but also have the alternative to
fall back on my gun.  To put it another way, I take very good care of my
car and am a very defensive driver.  Would you suggest that I remove my
safety belts and airbags since they are uncomfortable and could possibly
cause me to be unable to free myself from my car in the event of an
accident (even though statistics prove that you are better off with them
than without them despite the alluring anecdotal exceptions to the
contrary)?  What good does removing an alternative do?

The real problem with this approach is that you are depending on the
good intentions of a proven felon for your continued good health.  The
fallacy here, of course, is in the assumption that a robber is going to
be satisfied with the contents of the cash register (or whatever).  I'd
rather keep my options open.  Suppose the intent is not to rob you, but
to kidnap and kill you because of the color of your skin?  Or because
they don't want to leave any witnesses alive?  Or you remind them of a
school teacher they didn't like?  You are at their mercy.

The average person will have no need to use his gun in self-defense
during his entire lifetime.  Surprisingly enough, the same is true for
the police, too; the average U.S. policeman will never even have
occasion to draw his gun from its holster during his entire career.
However, the infrequency of the need does not mean that the item is
useless.  The average driver will never "use" the airbag on his car.
However, both the gun and the airbag are important, for if you *do* need
one, you need it very badly and you need it RIGHT THEN.

Every once in a while (or maybe more frequently, I don't have specific
numbers on hand), you get some low-life who decides that not having a
witness around is worth the murder rap; probably not a bad decision
nowadays, when time served for a non-premeditated murder conviction can
be as low a 4-5 years.  We had a couple of cases last year where cabbies
were found robbed and shot in the head.  FBI statistics indicate that a
victim has the best chance of survival by resisting with a firearm.
Victims resisting with firearms have a higher survival rate than those
who do not resist at all.  I suppose you subscribe to the "just lay back
and enjoy it" school of rape countermeasures, too?


   You don't need to protect yourself, let the police handle it all by
   themselves.  They're professionals; that's what we pay them for.
   When I want my house painted, I call a painter.  If I want my garden
   landscaped I call a gardener.  I could make a tolerable effort at
   both, but I might screw it up, so instead I rely on a trained
   professional, just as I expect someone who wants computer programming
   done to call on people like myself.  We can't all be experts at
   everything, so we each specialize.

Let's ignore for the moment that I, like many (dare I say most?)
Americans, prefer to do things for myself when possible.  Let us also
ignore for the moment that most telephone lines can be easily identified
from outside the home and cut and that (for now) cellular phone calls DO
NOT IDENTIFY YOU like land based lines do when calling 911; you must
tell them where you are because they don't have access to that
information.  Let's just look at what the role of the police really is.

The police are crime janitors; their job is, quite literally, to clean
up the mess after a crime has been committed.  They are under no
obligation to prevent a crime before it happens; it matters not whether
the crime is violent or non-violent.  All the police do it to
investigate the crime and, if possible, bring the perpetrator(s) before
the courts.  Unfortunately, the courts are more broken than the police;
it is common for a first-time marijuana possessor to serve more time in
prinder.

They are, by their physical presence, supposed to help maintain social
order.  The police have a general duty to protect the public, which is
different from a specific duty to protect individuals.  This means that
the police *could* be held liable if they ignored a riot, but couldn't
if they weren't there to protect some individual who was attacked in it.
It would seem that the police are not your personal bodyguards, and they
are not obligated under law to protect you.  You can't sue them (or
rather can't win), even if they stand back and watch while you are
beaten and robbed.  If your gardener kills your plants and breaks your
pipes, you have legal recourse to recover damages from him; if a cop
fails to protect you, you don't even have the right to an apology (and
the potential consequences of such imcompetence/inefficiency are *much*
more severe).  See any of the following cases for proof:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia,  477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)

There's an old saying that says 'it is better to have a gun and not need
it than to need one and not have it'.  Taking precautions to protect
myself and allowing the police to protect me are not mutually exclusive.
When your house is on fire, do you throw water on it or let it burn
until the fire fighters arrive?  I'd call the fire department, but I'd
damn sure turn my hoses on it, too.  If someone were breaking into my
house, I'd call the police, but I'd also be prepared to defend myself.
No one has a greater interest in how my house/garden/life turns out than
I do, not even the trained professionals.  Only a fool would delegate
his personal safety to some hired underling who could frankly not care
less as long as he is paid.

I think repelling home intruders is best done immediately, by a
competent non-professional (me) rather than making an appointment with a
so-called "professional" who will still probably mess it up.  Who knows
better the layout of my house and the voices, habits, and number of my
family; me or some hastily responding policeman?  I am on the scene, and
have immediate, first-hand knowledge of the situation.  When you're the
intended victim, there is very little of the ambiguity an arriving
policeman will have to sort through (assuming he even arrives while the
attack is still in progress).

If you call one painter, and he screws up, you can call in another
painter to fix the screw-up; there's lot's of painters to choose
amongst.  If you call in the police and they don't show or they screw it
up; you or your family could be harmed.  In most cases, there is only
one local police force to choose from.  That leaves private bodyguards
and I just don't have the money to waste on one even if I wanted to.
Perhaps you are a proponent of a police-state with a policeman in every
bedroom to "protect" you and "keep order"?

A 1986 survey of 2,000 imprisoned felons performed by the National
Institute of Justice showed that 57 percent of these inmates believed
encountering an armed victim is the worst thing that can happen -- even
worse then police apprehension -- and that 34 percent of them had been
shot at, driven off, wounded or captured by an armed victim.  (Point
Blank, pp. 130-8.)

To shed light on armed crime, the National Institute of Justice recently
sponsored a study that surveyed more than 1,800 convicted adult felons
(all men) incarcerated throughout the country...  about two-fifths of
the sample had at some time in their careers encountered an armed
victim; an equivalent percentage had at some time decided NOT to commit
a crime because they had reason to suspect that the intended victim was
armed.  (The Armed Criminal in America, by James D. Wright.)

On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the
police.  When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an
innocent person than are civilian shooters.  Moreover, civilians use
guns effectively against criminals.  If a robbery victim does not defend
himself, the robbery will succeed 88% of the time, and the victim will
be injured 25% of the time.  If the victim resists with a gun, the
robbery "success" rate falls to 30%, and the victim injury rate falls to
17%.  No other response to a robbery, from using a knife, to shouting
for help, to fleeing, produces such a low rate of victim injury and
robbery success.  In short, virtually all Americans who use guns do so
responsibly and effectively, notwithstanding the anxieties of gun
control advocates.

Even if the numbers of criminal deaths were the proper measure of
anti-crime efficacy, citizens acting with full legal justification kill
at least 30% more criminals than do the police.

   -- (CATO Institute Policy Analysis No.  109, TRUST THE PEOPLE:  THE CASE
       AGAINST GUN CONTROL, by David Kopel)

Armed citizens kill 2000 to 3000 criminals each year, three times the
number killed by police.
   -- Statistics from the United States Department of Justice.

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR,
           NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY CONFIRMS

                       By J. Neil Schulman

<1st paragraph deleted...>

     The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978
households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results
indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5
million times every year defending against a confrontation with a
criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses
per year.  Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented
the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked
failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might
have had to use his or her firearm more than once.

<rest deleted...>

"When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from
responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free, and was never free
again."
  -- Edith Hamilton

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to
preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the
general public."
   -- Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice

"There is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against
being murdered by criminals or madmen."
   -- Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982)

"...  a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide
public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual
citizen..."
   -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

"The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood:
The person who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it
to the first scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that
person's liberty!  Are you free?"
   -- Andrew Ford


   You don't need to carry a weapon to protect yourself.  Get martial
   arts training and join the Guardian Angels if you want to play
   pretend cop.  Curtis S. will give you a baton, T-shirt, red cap and
   send to work.  You will also be taught some slam and jam tactics that
   do not require the use of a firearm.  Otherwise get an alternative
   defensive weapon like a taser, sword or baseball bat to protect
   yourself.  Besides, who made you judge, jury, and executioner?

What if I am a 4"2', 65 pound woman or a sick, weak, elderly person?  A
lot of good such training will do me!  In all cases, the handgun is the
"great equalizer" which takes little training and virtually no strength
to use.  It requires only that you can see your target and hold your
arms steady long enough to point and pull the trigger.  Even if I am
capare
extremely more useful in offense than in defense (assuming my criminal
opponent would be so honorable as to play by the same rules and be
unarmed).  Consider the following:

o Guns make lots of noise when used, alerting nearby people to call for
  help.  People who are violently attacked quickly lose the ability to
  make noise and attract help.  This is why gunshots are more survivable
  than stab wounds.
o Swords and baseball bats are very effective murder weapons *against
  unarmed victims*, which is more often the case than not, since the
  attacker gets to choose the time, place, and identity of the victim to
  increase his advantage.
o Almost by definition, if you have a need for self-defense, the other
  guy is already armed (with something at least as deadly as what you
  have), so the effectiveness of a baseball bat *as a self-defense
  weapon* is not in the same league as its effectiveness *as a murder
  weapon*.  The same goes for swords.  (BTW, this argument is the likely
  cause of the "guns coincide with violence" statistics.  Correlation
  does not imply causation; it could be the other way around and
  "violent environments influence individuals to protect themselves with
  guns".)
o Baseball bats and swords will never be as effective as guns for
  self-defense, since:
  a) In order to be used for self-defense (or realistically threatened
     to be used, the wielder of a baseball bat or sword has to be at
     about arm's length from his attacker, which gives the bad guy a
     hell of a chance at disarming you or maiming/killing you after you
     take your first shot.
  b) Due to (a) above, he may well decide to stay just out of reach and
     wait for his opening or wait for his friends to arrive, whereas
     most people will run away real fast when a gun is aimed at them.
  c) Baseball bats and swords are less likely to immediately immobilize,
     meaning that the guy gets a lot of chances to harm you.
  d) The weak, elderly, and disabled are less able to effectively wield
     a baseball bat or sword than they are a gun.
o In contrast, as a murder weapon against unarmed victims, the above
  drawbacks shrink almost to nothing, so the victim is just as dead or
  crippled either way.

Take this small multiple choice test.  The question is, "A man has
broken into your house and is threatening to kill you.  Your wife and
kids are home but are asleep and unaware.  What are you going to do?"

1.  If attacked, I prefer to be defenseless and leave my wife and kids
    likewise.
2.  If attacked, I prefer to run away and leave my wife and kids to be
    attacked.
3.  If attacked, I prefer to call 911 and let the professionals handle
    the situation even though average police response time is more than
    5 minutes.
4.  If attacked, I prefer to sacrifice myself and my family to uphold my
    belief that all life is sacred and taking another human life is
    wrong.
5.  If attacked, I prefer to explain my pacifist philosophy of
    non-violence to my attacker in the hopes that a logical argument
    will dissuade him from such folly.
6.  If attacked, I prefer to defend myself and my family with a kitchen
    knife, although it takes skill to use and statistics show it to be
    an ineffective defense (particularly against a firearm).
7.  If attacked, I prefer to defend myself and my family with a gun,
    which statistics show to be an effective defense.
8.  Guns scare me.  What was the question again?

Most non-lethal alternatives to guns are not effective against more than
one adversary.  They are totally useless against a mob, as when civil
order breaks down (riots, hurricanes and severe earthquakes).  When
someone calls 911, and either the lines are dead, or one gets the answer
"You are on your own, pal..", whistles, hatpins, strong words,
watered-down sprays, and shock devices are downright laughable.  If they
were so great, police would dump their firearms and use these devices
instead.

As many have found out, only a firearm capable of repeat shots,
delivered rapidly and sometimes in quantity, can deter a mob of looters
that is bent on gutting and burning your home/business to the ground.
That is why this talk on banning rapid fire firearms and magazines that
hold more than a few shots, or which can be quickly changed is so
concerning.  It ensures people will be defenseless against mobs of
criminals.  All too often it can be days before any order is restored.

A taser requires 2 darts to not only hit, but also make it through heavy
clothing and to stick before it can deliver the constant shock (which
won't happen if the wires cross or snag).  It is a single shot; if you
fail on the first attempt, you are in big trouble.  Virtually all
jurisdictions BAN such devices for the common person.  Tear gas and
pepper spray are designed for outdoor use (the manuals even warn you)
because when used indoors, you are as likely to be affected by them as
your attacker is since they hang in the air.

The repeating firearm is the only tool that makes it possible to stop a
determined assailant (even if he isn't interested in stopping) with any
degree of certainty.  This is because to stop such a person one must
render him incapable of attacking, and the only way that can be done in
a time frame of a second or two is to disconnect the nervous system, or
cause loss of consciousness due to a very sudden fall in blood pressure.
Only a firearm can do that without letting the attacker get so close
that no defensive measure is going to be very effective if there is a
significant disparity of strength (something an attacker usually has in
his favor).

If someone is breaking into my house when he knows there are people
there, I can be relatively certain that my life is in immediate danger.
Maybe you would presume that he is your doctor stopping by to give you a
surprise checkup?  Once my health (notice I did not say my property) is
in danger, the attacker has tried and judged himself; if he forces me to
act as act as executioner then so be it.  His death would be on his
head, not mine.  Did you ever consider that the simple brandishing of a
firearm is often powerful enough to deter an attacker?  Discharge is not
always the first step; most of the time, it is the last resort.  Guns
are not the wands of death the media would like you to think they are.
Even if I do shoot my attacker, the chances are very good that he would
survive (assuming a torso shot) if he got medical attention quickly
enough.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not
lay them aside...  Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived
the use of them..."
   -- Thomas Paine

"The world is filled with violence.  Because criminals carry guns, we
decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns.  Otherwise they will
win and the decent people will loose."
   -- James Earl Jones


   Concealed carry weapon (CCW) laws will mean that every redneck in
   town will be packing heat.  You will see bar fights and traffic
   accidents ending in gunfire.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for the last decade shows that Florida
and Oregon (who both recently eased restrictions on concealed carry)
have experienced lower murder and violent crime rates.  In fact, if you
believe the media hysteria, criminals are now seeking out vacationers in
Florida since they can be relatively certain that such targets will be
unarmed.  A very small minority of citizens actually bother to get CCWs
(~10%) and of those a miniscule number commit crimes (<< .01%).

You'll also notice that all the worst cities for carjacking have one
thing in common which is not true for Phoenix (which has no carjacking);
it's illegal to have a loaded gun within reach while driving in these
cities:

Worst Cities with Respect     Loaded  Population  Number of Reported

      Carjacking               Car?*      **             ***
Chicago,        Illinois         N    3,005,072   2,573 since Jan 1.
New York,       New York         N    7,071,639     926 Jan 1 - Jul 1.
Dallas,         Texas            N      904,078     817 since January.
Cleveland,      Ohio             ?      573,822     560 in the last year.
Detroit,        Michigan         N    1,203,339     695 Jan 1 - Oct 3.
Washington,     D. C.            N      637,651     245 Jan 1 - Aug 6
Houston,        Texas            N    1,595,138     220 since Jan 1.
Philadelphia,   Pennsylvania     N    1,688,210     200 since Jan 1.
San Diego,      California       N      875,538     140 Jan 1 - Sept 15
Baltimore,      Maryland         N      786,775      75 since Jan 1.

* Can the average Joe carry a loaded gun within reach of the driver
  while in his car (It may be necessary to keep it out of sight,
  holstered, or in a storage compartment, but it must be legal to to
  have it unlocked and loaded.)  Sources are too numerous to list.

** Populations based on data from the 1986 _Webster's_Ninth_New_
   _Collegiate_Dictionary_; the data is not current but does serve for
   comparing the general population of a city.

*** As listed in _USA_TODAY_, Wednesday, October 7, 1992, page 2A, right
    column, "Carjackings across the USA."

"A free people ought... to be armed..."
   -- George Washington, speech of 7 January 1790

"An armed society is a polite society.  Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life."
   -- "Beyond This Horizon" by Robert Heinlein, 1942

"It is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety
armed."
   -- Joel Barlow

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed."
   -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion
... in private self-defense..."
   -- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of
      the UAS, 471 (1788)

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
   -- George Washington

"Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the
least spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honor which
he owes himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms."
   -- Thomas Pownall

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them."
   -- Richard Henry Lee writing in letters from the Federal Farmer to
      the Republic (1787-1788)

"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.  Games played
with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind.  Let your gun therefore be the
constant companion of your walks."
   -- Thomas Jefferson


   How can you defend the legal owning (and/or carrying of) handguns
   after the terrible Long Island Railroad massacre?  The perpetrator
   was a legal gun owner with no criminal or psychological record.  He
   did write numerous crazy letters but nothing public enough to prevent
   gun ownership.  Look at the "death board" and see all those lives
   lost to gunfire because of crazy people like this.

First of all, the man did *not* legally purchase the weapon he used.  He
presented false identification (an expired California driver's license
which identified a residence he had long since vacated).  He also
transported the weapon illegally (without a permit) while in New York.
The fact is, the waiting period failed to do anything to stop this
criminal from obtaining his weapon OF CHOICE in a timely enough manner
to use it the way he desired.  Thank you Sarah Brady.

If other passengers were legally permitted to carry, He may very well
have been stopped after the first or second shot.  Consider the
following:

Luby's Cafeteria in Texas:          Shoney's in Alabama:
A man runs a pickup through    S    2 men entered the restaurant
a wall, gets out, and starts   A    and rounded everyone up in the
executing people left and      M    freezer.  While searching the
right.  One woman watched      E    restaurant, they found one man
both her parents be executed        hiding under a table and they
while she watched.  She had    D    threatened him.  He shot the
a gun in her purse but it      A    first perp through a table top
was in her car outside.        Y    and the second right after that.

Could this have ended worse?        Could this have ended worse?

Now, which restaurant would you rather be in by chance?  Me, I'd opt for
Shoney's.  Now, isn't it a shame that the woman in Luby's couldn't carry
her gun into the restaurant, because she was scared she'd be arrested
(it's illegal to CCW in Texas)?  It makes me sad to read of such horror
stories, but I swear, I would rather have everyone armed than only the
criminals.  I just wish there had been just one gutsy citizen with
enough courage to engage in civil disobedience in order to protect his
life and the lives of others on the train that fateful day.  Where is
Bernie Goetz when you need him?  Oh yeah, in jail for standing up for
his Constitutional rights (I know; he's out now).

By making it impossible (illegal) to take any meaningful precaution
against violent criminals, the most important result is that you are
making life as safe and easy for violent criminals as possible.  Put
yourself in the shoes of your typical stick-up man or carjacker.  Now,
if every time you pulled a gun on somebody and demanded their
wallet/car/cash drawer/whatever, you were treated politely and given
exactly what you asked for, you'd probably be tempted to do it again.
And again and again.

You might even get the impression that what you were doing was OK;
everyone seems to be most agreeable to your suggestions.  Oh sure, there
is some risk of you getting caught, but it's pretty low.  In the winter,
when you can wear a mask without attracting attention, your chances of
being caught are almost nil.  And if you're really cautious, you can
avoid cameras and kill all of your victims.  They won't mind, they are
such nice, polite people.

On the other hand, if you keep getting shot by your victims and other
bystanders, you'll learn pretty fast to get a new line of work.  If the
general rules of society were such that anyone who runs around sticking
guns in peoples faces and demanding money ended up without a head crime
would go down.  I'm sure you would call this barbaric, but in my
opinion, the barbaric society is the one that lets the barbarians run
free.  If you don't fight them, they will conquer you.  It's just that
simple.  I can guarantee you that as long as we as a society allow
ourselves to be pushed around by violent criminals, the criminals will
keep pushing us around.

To me, liberty of all Americans is more important than a few lives.  We
fought wars over this already.  It is more than an issue about taking
away guns.  It is about taking away rights, taking away the means of
self-defense, and taking away self-respect.  Do you enjoy living in
fear, as a member of an underclass stripped of power and dignity, who
doesn't believe that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are worth
defending?  Have you no respect for your God given right to life and
liberty or are you too caught up in your pursuit of happiness to notice
you are being robbed of them?

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in
peace.  We seek not your council, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick
the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our
country men."
   -- Samuel Adams

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety."
   -- Benjamin Franklin


   What is wrong with raising the fee to be a gun dealer; there are more
   FFL dealers in the U.S. than <insert extremely widespread institution
   here>?

Why hurt small businessmen?  They didn't do anything to deserve a
screwing.  All this approach will do make big gun dealers bigger and put
small gun dealers out of business.  It will hurt the legitimate consumer
by making it more of a pain (longer drive, higher prices) to legally buy
a gun.  It is bad for the economy and good for criminals (the price for
a dirty gun is fairly constant and uniform).  It will do nothing about
crime since, according to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime are
obtained through the black market.

What will it do?  Every gun bought at a dealer since 1968 has
(supposedly) had a 4473 (yellow-sheet) filled out.  This new $600 fee
will force most FFLs out of business, thus forcing them to send all of
their 4473s to the BATF.  Who will promptly enter them all on their
computer system, of course.  Defacto registration.  The number of FFLs
might finally be small enough that BATF inspectors can keep close tabs
on them, maybe visiting each one at least once a year or so to
(illegally) copy all their Form 4473s.

Is it fair to impose a 2000% tax increase on an entire industry for no
reason whatsoever?  Today it is $600 but then they come back next year
and claim that some of the remaining FFL holders are not legitimate
businesses, and up the fee to $1200.  Then the next year $2400?  Then
$5000??  Then there's only a couple of dealers, and lots of crime, so we
have to shut down the last few dealers.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
   -- van Gogt


   What is wrong with taxing bullets?

Taxing bullets only means gun owners will be less willing & able to
practice to stay "well regulated" and safe.  I have already discussed
that criminals will pay whatever price is necessary to obtain the tools
of their trade.  Once again, this will mainly hurt the businesses that
make and sell bullets and the legitimate, law-abiding "bullet-user".  I
have an idea; how about if we have a tax on locks to help pay for all
the crimes committed by burglars.  Or how about a tax on tires and
gasoline to help pay for all the hospital costs of the victims of drunk
drivers?


   We should ban exploding ammunition like Black Talon since they are
   designed specifically to mangle human flesh.  They have little
   sporting advantage and you can defend yourself just as easily by
   wounding an attacker with regular bullets instead of killing them.

There are no bullets that "explode".  Hollow points and other forms of
"expanding" bullets like Black Talons are designed to decelerate rapidly
and transfer all the force of the bullet to the target as quickly as
possible.  These are the properties of a safe bullet.  You want them to
hit a target, do a lot of damage and stop there.  "Regular" bullets have
the nasty habit of passing through the intended target (or through walls
if you miss), doing minor damage (resulting in the target not being
incapacitated) and then striking other targets before coming to rest.
This makes them very dangerous.

Most (if not all) police carry the safe ammo.  If they prefer it, then
maybe there's a reason.  Maybe, just maybe, it's because it's effective
at stopping criminals while protecting innocent bystanders.  Maybe it
makes them fell less likely to accidentally kill their partner since the
safe bullets are not good at piercing the armor in their vests.  The
fact that safe bullets also do a lot of damage to the primary
(unshielded) target is a bonus.  If you are prepared to shoot at
someone, you had better be intent on killing them.  You should never
point a gun at anything that you do not intend to destroy.  Why would
the government want to ban safe bullets from civilian use?  Perhaps
because the use of the unsafe ones will cause more damage and give them
more ammunition to go after your guns since the bullet ban didn't work.


   What is wrong with banning gun shows?  This is where criminals go to
   get their guns "under the table".  If you want a gun, go to a gun
   store; FFLs don't need to drag an armoury into a convention center to
   make guns available!

It is no secret that the Clinton/Reno agenda includes banning gun shows,
if not outright, by banning the sale/swap/exchange of any firearm
related material, such as firearms, parts, ammo, reloading components,
and literature.  In other words, the stuff gun shows are made of.  Gun
show organizers are trying to do just the opposite; at least one
collectors association prohibits members' tables from having more than
10 percent of the total table space devoted to non-firearm related items
(candy bars, perfume, flowers, food, etc).  One is legal self regulation
the other is an unconstitutional infringement.

Gun shows often mean private sales (not in registration databases).  Gun
shows mean information relating to firearms is exchanged.  The gun
grabbers don't like that since people kept ignorant are more likely to
have accidents, or use a gun inappropriately, giving the gun grabbers
more 'reason' to ban them.  Gun shows provide a nucleus where pro-gun
organizations can meet and exchange ideas, info on politicians records,
etc.  and they don't like THAT, either.  Gun shows make it possible for
pro-gun people to meet, get to know each other, and work together and
they don't like that.  So they've got to get rid of gun shows, somehow,
some way.  Gun shows are no different than craft fairs; they are places
where suppliers can find consumers and where hobbyists can go to meet
like-minded people to talk and trade with.

"Banning gun shows to reduce violent crime will work about as well as
banning auto shows to reduce drunken driving."
   -- Bill McIntire, Spokesman for the National Rifle Association, on
      Norfolk, Va. council's vote to cancel four gun shows, 1992


   What is wrong with gun buy-back programs?  If someone is so
   uncommitted to firearms that they are willing to trade that firearm
   for a consumable like a concert ticket or gift certificate then I
   view them making that trade as a good thing.  Somebody like that is
   likely to be an untrained and irresponsible firearm owner in the
   first place.

Most of the guns that are brought in are nonfunctional or functional but
worthless or worth considerably less that the "reward" given for turning
them in.  In these cases, the program is *extremely* cost inefficient
and wasteful.  It generates a huge windfall for Raven, Davis, Lorcin and
all the other makers of cheap guns.  Since some of these buy backs have
been taking $15 BB guns, you could do even better than that (and no
waiting period or FFL problems).

The guns that are in good working order are typically of 2 types; guns
that a criminal has stolen and doesn't need or guns that have been
inherited by someone who is too unknowledgable to know their true value.
In the 1st case, you are simply acting as a "fence" and allowing the
criminal to safely (and profitably) dispose of (potentially)
incriminating evidence (perhaps of a murder) and get money to buy a
better, more deadly gun off the black market.  In the 2nd case you are
taking advantage of someone who could probably use the money that a
legitimate sale of such a valuable item would yield.  Widows whose
husbands have died and left a gun (or collection) are commonly taken
advantage of by buy-backs.  I don't think giving felons a safe way to
sell stolen goods or ripping off old ladies is a good sort of public
policy.

These programs would be much more productive if they verified the serial
numbers (if present) and returned the guns to the law-abiding owners.
In most cases, no attempt is made to return stolen guns to the rightful
owners (imagine if the police did this with recovered cars!)  If it is
illegal for a pawn shop to accept guns (and other merchandise) "no
questions asked" (they have to check all serial numbers with police),
then why is it OK for rich citizens, big corporations, or corrupt
municipalities to do so?  Buybacks are a bounty on your legally owned
firearms, paying criminals $100 apiece to steal them from you "no
questions asked".

der, the
gun could be restamped with a new serial number and "disposed of"
profitably.  They could be given (or sold at low cost) to responsible
local citizens who desire a firearm but cannot afford one.  At the very
least, they could be auctioned, pawned, or stripped for spare parts.
Destroying them is like burning tax dollars.

In Finland folks give their guns to the police when they want to get rid
of them, unless, of course, they know someone who would like to have one
and can get papers to possess one.  Police then sell these given guns to
law-abiding citizens once or twice a year with the proceeds going to
police and/or government use.  All guns obtained by Finnish police are
checked to see if they were stolen before going to public auction/sale.
The police have the right to pick up "useful items" from these guns
before auctions, so police get what they need and taxpayers save money.

These programs potentially destroy irreplaceable collectible (and,
unbeknownst to the poor sap who turns it in, VALUABLE) antiques that
should be preserved in a museum.  In all likelihood, most of the
valuable guns that are turned in somehow manage to "vanish" on their way
to the smelter and don't really get taken out of circulation.

"K-Mart is the nation's largest gun dealer.  Why not go to K-Mart, buy a
gun for $69.95 and take it across the street to Toys R Us for a $100
gift certificate?  That's a $30 profit."
   -- Comedian Jay Leno on the Tonight Show in December 1993

"There was a [drug] deal that went bad outside my store, and he ran into
my store and the other guy had him on the floor ready to stab him.  I
said, 'Drop the knife and get out of my store.'  I saved his life...  I
approve of gun ownership by responsible people."
  --Fernando Mateo, the man behind the guns-for-toys swap on why he
    intends to keep his own .38-caliber Colt revolver which he said he
    keeps in a safe at home even though he has a NY CCW permit


   If your argument is "we shouldn't ban guns because criminals won't
   obey the law" then why should we have any laws at all?

Laws don't limit what anyone can do; they set limits on what the State
can exact punishment for, and limits on that punishment.  If the
resulting effect is that people choose to not do certain things, it's a
side benefit.  Whether or not an act is committed is still up to the
person's choice, the law *cannot* force someone to not do something;
otherwise, there would be no crime.  Since it is already illegal
(punishable) to commit a crime with a gun, what purpose is served by
making guns illegal (since it will only make committing other crimes
easier for criminals)?

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and
the military are the weapons of dictatorship.  The rifle is the weapon
of democracy...  If guns are outlawed, only the government will have
guns.  Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired
servants of our rulers.  Only the government - and a few outlaws.  I
intend to be among the outlaws."
   -- Edward Abbey


   Your argument that we should worry about criminals' illegal guns
   doesn't make sense because *all* guns start out being manufactured
   and sold "legally".  It isn't until a legal gun is stolen or used to
   commit a crime that it becomes "illegal".  Why wait until a crime is
   committed when we can get rid of the gun before the fact?  If the
   "legal" gun owner didn't possess a gun to begin with, it couldn't be
   stolen and used to commit crimes.

*All* aircraft and most motor vehicles used by smugglers of all sorts to
illegally transport goods and people were originally manufactured and
sold legally to their first buyer.  You would prefer to lock up folks
before they commit a crime so as to reduce crime, I suppose.  Being
consistent, I assume that you would also advocate locking up young male
blacks before they can assault other young blacks.  Or perhaps you'd
like to lock up all adults before they could risk the population at
large by driving while intoxicated?  And what about all those potential
rapists walking around with concealed penii?  Just how far do you want
to go with your exercise of prior restraint?

The only reason that any crime gun starts out legally is because that
happens to be the easiest place to get them.  The behavior of criminals
is not defined by laws; remove the current source of guns and they'll go
to the next easiest source.  Remove that source and they'll go to the
next one, etc.  Ban guns throughout the country and they'll go overseas
or make them illegally.  The first buyer is often a government or
government agency, either U.S. or foreign.  So denying the civilian
access still leaves these others, and they account for enough that
diversions from these sources would supply plenty of guns.  One would
have to ban them for not only the civilians but the police and other
government agencies, AND DO IT WORLDWIDE.  All those automatic weapons
used by terrorists or drug dealers were made legally *initially*, yes.
But they were *smuggled* to their end users, whether it's terrorists (as
in Ireland or other European countries) or drug dealers.

Then if the worldwide ban were possible, you would find the creation of
illegal sources of quite good arms (albeit not as nicely finished or
fitted as some of the better commercial models).  Many modern designs
are characterized by their ability to be fabricated using third-world
technology.  The AK comes to mind, as well as a number of other
communist block weapons.  Western weapons (especially U.S. designs, and
lately German or Austrian designs) need very high-tech processes (high
tech plastics and alloys, and injection or other molding processes).
But guns like the Skorpion, and earlier WWII or pre-WWII designs are
very simple to fabricate using nothing more than a pipe with a barrel
fitted at the end, with a spring-loaded weight with a tit on the face,
such as a Sten, or Schmeisser.  Illicit manufacture in quantity would be
impossible to stop or control.

But this talk is all based on the assumption that the *victim* of a
crime is responsible for it (and any repercussions thereafter).  To say
that a gun owner is responsible for the theft of his gun (and any crimes
committed with it) makes as much sense as saying that a vagina-owner is
responsible for her being selected as a target of rape (and the spread
of any STDs to other women raped by her attacker after she has infected
him).  In reality, the gun owner who has a gun stolen from his home is
as much a victim as someone who has any other valuable item stolen, such
as jewelry, an expensive computer, or a car.  The car is useful for
crime, too, as a getaway or as a weapon to cause hit-and-runs.  So what
is the point of the banning exercise, *really*?  We are back to prior
restraint, and a double standard, to boot.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself."
   -- Thomas Paine


   The idea that people equipped with light arms are going to face down
   an army armed with missiles and tanks is ridiculous.  When things get
   that bad, people will be able to get weapons from sympathizers
   anyway.

The Viet Cong did it.  The Sandanistas did it.  The Cubans did it.  The
FMLN did it.  The Shining Path are doing it now.  The Chinese Communists
did it.  The Afghan rebels did it.  Do you know what the *most*
consistent request is by the Bosnians?  It isn't for food or medicine;
they want the lifting of the arms embargo so that they can obtain light
arms to defend themselves with.  It seems that for some unexplainable
reason, many of the populace would rather take a couple of invaders with
them as they are quickly shot rather than be forced to beg on their
knees as they are raped, mutilated, and tortured to death; go figure.

Perhaps you should read a little more 20th century world history.
Although most of these groups now have sophisticated large scale weapons
of war, none of them had outside aid from the beginning.  They all
eapons
from their enemies.  They all fought successfully for several years
before anyone offered them aid.  There is an obvious reason for that;
very few nations are willing to risk supporting a third-rate rebel who
is going to loose no matter what.

So revolutions only get outside support after they have managed to fight
and win battles on their own.  All of the groups mentioned above were
fighting a revolution on their own, starting with no more than small
arms and either winning or holding their own, with no outside aid or
arms supplies.  The Afghans got no aid at all for the first four years;
the Vietcong (or rather the Vietmihn, the Vietcong's predecessors) did
not get any outside aid before 1960.  Before that, they still managed to
throw the French Army out of Indochina.

After the Federal government encounters a few expensive operations, who
will fund it?  The Vietnamese had the Soviets, the Afghans had the U.S.
Will a Japan with financial problems of its own looming, loan the
billions needed?  The U.S. government is pretty near collapse as it is,
it wouldn't take a very hard shove.  I suppose they could raise taxes to
even more ruinous levels and adopt the attitude of tyrant to "win".
It's hard to see how this solution would last very long either, it would
seem rather to fuel further rebellion.  Defeating a superior enemy is
not necessarily the point.  You can make dealing with you more expensive
than it's worth (as happened to America in Vietnam).  From what I
understand of history, the USA didn't gain their independence from
England by defeating them.  They just made it so the British weren't
willing to bother fighting a war that far away when they had so many
other problems on their hands.

Let's consider the Branch Davidian debacle.  It is pretty obvious that
the BATF illegally served a search warrant.  They did not have
permission for a no-knock raid nor did they have any arrest warrants.
In fact, they did not even have any evidence that any laws had been
broken.  The main reason they went out to Mount Carmel was to get those
"nasty" guns out of the hands of that crazy "cult".  Because they had
guns that they were able use to defend themselves from an illegal armed
assault by government agents, the BATF took some casualties which will
make them think twice (and three times, and four times, and...) before
they try this kind of stunt again.

The standoff made the world news and called the event to the attention
of everyone, many of whom are now interested in investigating the
details and punishing those who exceeded their authority.  Without the
guns, the BATF would have stormed the place, done anything they wanted
to, hauled people off to jail, and no one would have ever heard anything
about it, or cared.  Guns make it very costly (in a variety of ways) for
the government to run roughshod over people, and that keeps them from
using such tactics as often as they would otherwise.

P.S. Even Rush Limbaugh got this one wrong :<

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course
others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
   -- Patrick Henry (1736-1799) "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing
which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
creature, and will never be free unless made and kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
   -- John Stewart Mills

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?  Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be watered
periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.  It is its
natural manure."
   -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S.  Smith, 1787, in Jefferson,
      On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939)

"... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know
how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
   -- Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention
      rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."
   -- Trence Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
      Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in
      the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789


   When things get so bad that the people need to take up arms against
   an illegitimate government people will be able to find weapons even
   if they are illegal.  If the government is benevolent then you don't
   need a gun to protect yourself against them.  If it is malevolent
   then it is silly to say, "Please Mr. Dictator, allow me to legally
   own a weapon that I am going to use against you."

[IMHO, this is the most logical argument of them all but it still has
problems]

You are missing the value of deterrence.  Things can't *get* that bad if
the government is faced with an armed public and the threat of potential
revolution.  No matter how corrupt the government's goals, they probably
aren't willing to provoke a civil war.  Nor can the people always find
weapons.  Many revolts have failed because the people were not armed and
could not acquire weapons.  The Warsaw uprising of 1944, for example,
where the Home Army only had enough guns to arm 10% of their volunteers.

Small arms have a tremendous deterrent value and raise the *price* of
waging war on the populace much higher.  It is not necessary that the
civilians win, merely that they not lose badly enough to drain the
strength of the tyrants.  I realize you find it literally impossible
that small arms beat well-equipped standing armies, but they do.
Well-equipped professional armies are by necessity small, and the kinds
of losses that guerrillas find acceptable, would decimate a professional
army.

But all this is hypothetical.  Various military types have run the
scenario and wargamed it.  The odds of the government winning against a
population of 250 million, many with small arms, is surprisingly low.
What you ask is that we reduce the threshold of cost for this type of
operation, and then hope that the government stays forever benevolent.
Given some of the things that already exist in U.S.  (and world)
history, this would be a long-shot bet.

Many people who style themselves as lovers of freedom aren't.  The idea
that the ability to speak freely is enough, and that all other forms of
protection can be dispensed with while you have that is foolhardy.
Administrations and bureaucracies change.  The point is not to protect
against the current bunch, but against somebody *worse* farther down the
line.

Even Machiavelli had some bad things to say about governments that were
terrified of, and thus disarmed, their own populace.  He noted that
building fortresses for the upper class, and disarming the peasants,
rarely had the desirable long term effect one would suppose.  Don't
forget that there was a perfectly peaceful change of power in Germany in
1932 when the government went from benign to genocidal virtually
overnight.

"... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little
if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand
ready to defend their rights..."
   -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper
      29

"It's the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a
unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of
their Governors, and to fight for what's their own.  If those in
govern
Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to
do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in
their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most
capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall
have least occasion to make use of it."
   -- John Trenchard and Walter Moyle

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest
reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a
last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
   -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
      1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by doing so."
   -- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938


   You are forgetting that it is the *United States* we are talking
   about here; the good ole U S of A!  This is not Iraq, where they have
   never had a true democracy and are ruled by a power-hungry idiot.
   This is America, the land of the free, the home of the brave!  All
   government and military personell have sworn a solemn oath to uphold
   and defend the Constitution.  If there were a national coup, then you
   can bet your left arm that the vast majority of the U.S. Armed
   Forces, as well as the National Guard units and police departments,
   will come to the rescue.  If the U.S. Armed Forces were ordered to
   seize control of the USA, none of the support they depended on in the
   Gulf would be available for long.  Many units would undoubtedly use
   their weapons to oppose the troops who sided with the fascist
   government officials with totalitarian ambitions.  Without supplies
   and civilian support, the few members of the U.S. Armed Forces that
   were crazed enough to go along with the takeover attempt would soon
   find themselves outnumbered, outgunned, and out of basic necessities.
   So what do you need your gun for?  You can rely on the troops.

I get it, "It can't happen here!  We're better and smarter and more
civilized than all those other people throughout history!"  Right?

Perhaps the majority would rebel but not immediately.  Troops chosen for
initial suppression operations are always those deemed "reliable";
meaning they will follow orders without question, and some even go
beyond it.  In the Bonus March incident of 1932, MacArthur kept
attacking the demonstrators, despite orders from the President to
restrain his troops.  Perhaps you think the massacre of the Branch
Davidians near Waco was acceptable use of force and merely a politically
correct "state-assisted" suicide?  In January 1993, 120 nations
including the USA banned CS tear gas from use in warfare.  In April
1993, the U.S. government used it against U.S. citizens.  It has
already happened here and is still happening!

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?  By what means
shall we fortify against it?  Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic
military giant to step the ocean and crush us with a blow?  Never!  All
the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with a Bonaparte at their
head and disposing of all the treasure of the earth, our own excepted,
could not by force make a track on the Blue Ridge or take a drink from
the Ohio in a trial of a thousand years.  At what point then is the
approach of danger to be expected?  I answer, if it ever reach us it
must spring up from amongst us.  It cannot come from abroad.  If
destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher.
As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by
suicide."
   -- Abraham Lincoln, 1838

"This last September, on a survey questionnaire given to members of the
U.S. counter-terrorist unit Navy SEAL Team Six by their commanders, was
the following question:  'Would you fire on U.S. Citizens while in the
process of confiscating their guns?'"
  -- Page 8 of the February issue of "Modern Gun", under a section
     labeled "Question of the Month"

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised as
Americanism."
   -- Huey Long


   Without gun, you can't have a drive-by shooting.

Without a car, you can't have a drive-by shooting.


   You can't have a drive-by knifing.

You can't have a tricycle-by shooting (and have a good chance of getting
away with it).


   If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths.

If there were no germs, there would be no disease.  If there was no
gravity, there would be no deaths or injuries do to falls.


   In the trigger-happy USA, murders outnumber justifiable deaths by
   firearms 43 to 1; what do you have to say about that?

Boy, that statistic just keeps getting more and more distorted, doesn't
it?  The 43 to 1 figure does *not* measure self-defense shootings versus
non self-defense shootings.  It measured the number of times a gun in
the home killed someone "known" to the owner versus how many times the
gun killed someone not known to the owner.  This still sounds impressive
until you look deeper into it.  Suicides are counted in the "known" 43
side, and in fact make up the great majority of the cases (37), 1.3 are
accidents, and the remaining 4.6 are actual intentional shootings, and
since they are "acquaintance" shootings it sounds as if they're family
tragedies, but that's not the case.  While it's not broken down, those
4.6 include self-defense shootings when the attacking person is "known"
to the gun owner.  These attackers includes violent ex-spouses, psycho
friends who attack in a rage, and people from the neighborhood that you
happen to know well enough to recognize who decide to rob you and kill
you for your money.

Finally, even the non-justifiable homicides in the 4.6 would include
gang member and drug dealers and so on who end up shooting someone they
know by name, say rival gang members or whatever (incidentally, these
deaths are always lumped into the "children" category to make it seem
like 2 year olds are killing themselves left and right in accidents).
One wonders how tiny the figure would actually be if suicides weren't
counted, self-defense shootings weren't counted, and intentional
criminal behavior wasn't counted.  Only *then* would you have a
realistic figure which the average non-criminal household could use as a
basis for deciding whether the gun they have at home is more likely to
tragically kill a family member than an intruder.

Furthermore, note that the *only* thing counted in the "1" side of the
"43 to 1" figure is killings of someone you've never even seen before,
which is a small subset of all justifiable homicides.  If they really
wanted to be honest, the authors of the study that produced the "43 to
1" figure would have eliminated suicides (I don't consider voluntary
deaths to be relevant), would have eliminated criminal acts (I don't
consider what a drug dealer does with his gun to be relevant to the
average American home), and would have then compared accidental deaths
and "heat of passion" deaths against justifiable self-defense homicides,
no matter who the dead person was (family member or not, if you have to
shoot in self-defense, it's a *good* thing the gun was in the house).

Unfortunately, the study did not attempt to make such a measure,
preferring instead to produce a misleading statistic that makes it sound
as if people are 43 times more likely to shoot a family member without
really meaning to than they are to shoot someone who they had a good
reason to shoot, when in fact this is *not* the case.  And, by
specifically *not* counting the cases where the gun was used in a
non-lethal manner to halt an assault or attempted murder, they're
seriously underreporting the protective effects of a gun in the home.
Not very honest.  If you still stand by this "statistic" in the face of
its criminally unscientific foundations, perhaps you'd care to buy my
scientifically proven, recently discovered plans for a cold fusion
reactor which will make you rich!


 Americans) are a bunch of out of
   control, gun-toting, crazy people, I'm going to cancel my vacations
   plans and stay in [insert gun controlling country or state here]
   where I am safe.

This is the sort of thinking that makes me throw my hands up in despair
at the stupidity of human beings.  How many foreign tourists are killed
each year in America?  A few dozen, surely less than 200.  How many come
here and return home unscathed?  Millions.  Did you know that the
citizen and tourist homicide rates have been steadily declining since
the passage of CCW in Florida?  Your odds of dying in the plane on the
way over are much higher than being killed by a gun while you are here.
The odds of dying in a car or bus accident while travelling around are
*tremendously* higher.  And yet people don't think of that.  Real,
immediate dangers all around them are blocked out because they are
beyond their ability to control.  So they cancel a trip to Florida
(where the chances of them being shot are about them same as their
chances of winning the lottery) to give themselves an illusion of
control over the dangers in their lives.

This reminds me of when we had the great "syringe in the Pepsi can"
scare a while back.  There were about six or so reported cases of
syringes found in Pepsi cans, only one of which turned out to be true.
And yet it was on the news every single night, and they interviewed
people who said they were not going to drink Pepsi again.  Now, I don't
know how many cans of Pepsi are sold every day, but it has to be an
incredibly large number.  And yet there were these people standing on a
busy street corner, inches away from *real* danger, saying that they
were afraid to buy Pepsi because a syringe had been found in ONE CAN.

This is the same sort of thinking that leads to calls for banning guns.
People see and hear all these terrible incidents, and think that every
gun in America is being used to kill people.  And yet, the actual
percentage of guns that are used in crimes (let alone to actually kill
people) is vanishingly small.  99.9% of all guns are owned by
responsible, law-abiding citizens, but this vast majority is always
ignored.


   OK, you have convinced me; I was wrong about gun control.  Now that I
   see how illegal, immoral, and counter-productive it is, what can I do
   to stop it?

Convince as many people as you can (make it your mission to convince at
least 1) that gun control is wrong.  Start with your immediate family
members.  Take them shooting with you (many gun grabbers have never seen
a gun, much less fired one), debate with them, educate them.  Try not to
alienate them; you want to win them over.  Convince like-minded people
to be proactive and try to convince unlike-minded ones that they should
reevaluate their positions.  Keep printed (hard) copies of this document
(and other literature) everywhere; at home, at work, in your cars, etc.
That way when you want to educate a gun grabber, you are properly armed
(hey, stop groaning :)

Write and call as many politicians (local, state, and federal) as you
can; personal visits are best and letters are almost as powerful.  Phone
calls and form letters are useful but often ignored (petitions, on the
other hand are very persuasive).  Tell them the facts and inform them of
your opinions.  Tell them you hold them personally accountable for all
gun control legislation that is passed while they are in office.  Tell
them that all "compromises" are unacceptable (that's how the Brady Law
got through) no matter what other "good" things are in the bill.

Abandon the Democratic and Republican parties because the Democrats will
never change and the Republicans are selling out left and left; the day
Republicans voted in significant numbers in favor of the Brady Bill was
the day I knew it was time to give up on them.  Vote strictly
Libertarian from now on (Libertarians are the only "politicians" who are
pro-choice ON ALL ISSUES including the right to keep and bear arms).

Join as many "pro-gun" lobbying groups as you can afford and fund them
as graciously as you can.  Make photocopies of every membership fee
check that you write and send copies to your politicians with a note
saying, "This could have been your campaign contribution."  Be a
"watchdog" and keep your eyes and ears peeled for reportings of
tragedies caused by gun control and tragedies that were avoided due to
the use of guns.  Report these to the NRA and the CCRKBA (listed below).

Below you will find a list of organizations dedicated to preserving your
Second Amendment (and other) rights.  I would suggest as a bare minimum
that you join the NRA (for its size and power), the CCRKBA (for its
research and singularity of purpose), the Libertarian Party (for its
broad political potential), and at least one local or state
organization.

Note that many of these organizations have tax-exempt branches which
deal with defending people in court.  Please help defend your liberties
which are most under attack by the current occupants of the White House
and Congress.  Also note that the ACLU is not listed; they are dedicated
to destroying your Second Amendment rights and are therefore a bunch of
hypocrites (sure we defend your civil liberties but only those we think
you should have).  I suggest you resign your membership with them
immediately and explain why.

Academy of Self-Defense, P.O. Box 1278, Seattle, WA 98111; 206-523-8642
Bradley J. Steiner, Instructor

American Citizens and Lawmen Association on Crime Prevention (ACLACP),
P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066; 602-243-5928

American Pistol Institute, P.O. Box 401, Gunsite Ranch Pauldin, AZ 86334;
602-636-4565, 602-636-1236 fax

American Shooting Sports Council, Inc., 9 Perimeter Way, Suite C-950,
Atlanta, GA 30339; 404-933-0200
Chairman: Michael Saporito
Executive Director: Richard J. Feldman
Membership: 113
Publications: Bi-monthly Newsletter
   The American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC), founded in March 1989,
represents the firearms industry and performs general promotion of
legislation.  The ASSC's primary focus is to unify and cohesively
protect the firearms industry on economic, liability and other
legal/social issues that directly affect the future and growth of the
industry.

American Small Arms Academy, P.O. Box 12111, Prescott, AZ 86304;
602-778-5623

Arizona Constitutional Rights Committee (ACRC), P.O. Box 84151,
Phoenix, AZ 85071-4151; 602-942-9181

Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association (ASRP), P.O. Box 40962,
Mesa, AZ 85274-0962

AWARE, We are, P.O. Box 242, Bedford, MA 01730-0242

Bay Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education (BAPROFS), 101
First Street, Suite 131, Los Altos, CA 94022; 408-865-1720

California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. (CRPA), 12062 Valley View
St., Suite 107, Garden Grove, CA 92645; 415-892-9821

Chapman Academy of Practical Shooting, 4350 Academy Road, Hallsville, MO
65255; 314-696-5544

Citizens Against Tyranny (CAT), 111 E. Drake, #7091, Fort Collins, CO
80525

Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA),
Liberty Park, 12500 N.E.  10th Place, Bellevue, WA 98005; 206-454-4911
CCRKBA California Office 926 J. Street, Suite 216, Sacramento, CA 95814;
916-446-9808, 916-446-2270 fax
CCRKBA U.S. Capitol Office 600 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E., Suite 205
Washington, D.C. 20003
Fee: $15
   Originated as an ad hoc committee of the Young Americans for Freedom.
It has been in independent operation since 1971.  CCRKBA believes "in
the Second Amendment of the U.S.  Constitution upholding the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, that firearms registration does not
and cannot solve the problems of rising crime in our streets, and that
registration leads to the eventual confiscation of firearms, that a
mandatory sentence on conviction of a felony involving the use of a
firearm is a deterrent to crime", and "that the disarming of individual
law-abiding citizens will result in the loss of individual freedoms."
CCRKBA employs one full-time lobbyist in Washington, D.C.  They do have
a political action committee, entitled Right to Keep and Bear Arms

candidates.

Citizens For a Better Stockton (CBS), Stockton, CA

Citizens For Safe Government (CSG), Atlanta, GA

Citizens Safety Committee, Multnomah County, Political Action Committee,
P.O. Box 19448, Portland, OR 97219; 503-283-4368

Coalition for American Liberty (CAL) c/o Watergun, 685 Washington Ave.,
Miami Beach, FL 33139; 305-531-3110

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS), P.O. Box 423, Oakhurst, NJ
07753; 201-389-3355

Commonwealth Sports Alliance Political Action Committee, P.O. Box 657
Powhatan, PA 23139

Congress of Racial Equality, 30 Cooper Square, Ninth Floor, New York, NY
10003; 212-598-4000
Chairman: Roy Innis
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) is a group which began in
Brooklyn as a civil rights organization to promote the rights of blacks
including their right to keep and bear arms.  CORE currently has five
regional groups, 39 state groups, and 116 local groups and maintains its
headquarters in New York City.  The organization is active in several
anti-crime programs on the grassroots level and emphasizes individual
participation in crime prevention.

Democrats for the Second Amendment, 723 Camino Plaza #281, San Bruno,
CA, 94066; 415-940-1143
Internet:  [e-mail]
Are you a Democrat?  Do you oppose unreasonable gun control?  Then join
Democrats for the Second Amendment today!

Ducks Unlimited, 1 Waterfowl Way, Memphis, TN 38120; 901-758-3825
President: John E. Walker
Exec. Vice President: Matthew Connolly, Jr.
Membership: 510,000
Publications:  Ducks Unlimited Magazine (bi-monthly)
Ducks Unlimited employs 120 people in its Tennessee office.  Ducks
Unlimited was established in 1937 to help preserve wetlands for
waterfowl after the droughts of the 1930s.  It continues its
conservation efforts while promoting hunting rights.  It has several
projects to increase duck populations including the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan whose goal is to bring the North American
Waterfowl population up to its 1970 level of a fall flight 100 million
birds.  Ducks Unlimited works with various federal and state agencies as
well as the private sector to meet its goals.

Firearms Coalition (FC), Neal Knox Associates, P.O. Box 6537, Silver
Spring, MD 20916; 301-871-3006 (info line)

Firearms Education Institute (FEI), P.O. Box 2193 El Segundo, CA 90245;
310-322-7244

Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), 37 Pierce St., Northboro, MA 01532;
508-393-5333

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Inc.
U.S. Capitol Office, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA
22151; 703-321-8585
California Headquarters, 3440 Viking Street, #106, Sacramento, CA 95828;
916-361-3109
Chairman: H.L. "Bill" Richardson
Executive Director: John Stoos
Membership: About 300,000
Fee: $20/yr
Publications: The Gun Owners (monthly)
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) employs 15 people in its California and
Virginia offices.  It has two registered lobbyists in California and
four working in Washington, D.C. Gun Owners of America was organized by
California State Senator Bill Richardson (since retired) in 1975 for the
purpose of raising funds to assist pro-gun candidates for public office.
GOA contributes primarily to challengers, and considers issues beyond
the scope of the Second Amendment.  GOA's political action committee in
entitled Gun Owners of America Campaign Committee.

Gun Owners of California (GOC), 3440 Viking Dr., Suite 106, Sacramento, CA
95827; 916-361-3109

Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) c/o Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place,
Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585

Gun Owners REACT Committee 862 Granite Circle Anaheim, CA 92806
714-956-2439

Hoosier Volunteers Indiana

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 444 North
Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 544, Washington, D.C. 20001; 202-624-78
Exec. Vice President: Max Peterson
Membership: 450
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) is
comprised of 68 state and provincial fish and wildlife agencies and 382
officials.  Founded in 1902 as the International Association of Game,
Fish, and Conservation Commissioners, the IAFWA has organized to educate
people on the "importance of conserving natural resources and managing
wildlife properly as a source of recreation and food supply."  It
maintains several committees including Hunter Education, Migratory
Wildlife, and Wildlife Habitat Protection.

Isaac Walton League, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Level B, Arlington, VA
22209; 703-528-1818
Executive Director: Maitland Sharpe
Membership: 55,000
The Isaac Walton League has a staff of 22 in Virginia and has 20 state
groups and 400 local groups.  The League works to educate the public on
conservation, soil restoration, forest, water, and other natural
projects.  It promotes the recreational use of lands and has a
pro-hunting policy.  The League has several environmental programs
including the Wetlands Watch and Outdoor Ethics Information Center, as
well as a weekly television program, "Make Peace With Nature."  It also
has several workshop programs for various interests.  The Isaac Walton
League maintains the Isaac Walton League Endowment which is a program to
purchase land for eventual sale to the U.S. Forest Service.  The
Endowment also provides funding for youth camps and education.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2872 South Wentworth
Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207; 414-769-0760
Executive Director: Aaron Zelman
Research Director: J.E. Simkin
Membership: About 3,000 (open to all law-abiding firearms owners)
Fee: $20/yr
Founded in 1989, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
does research to find new ideas and methods to destroy gun control.
JPFO uses print and electronic media to accomplish this goal.  JPFO is a
non-partisan group which seeks to destroy the concept of gun control and
of all gun control laws that target the law-abiding citizen.  They
believe in a constitutional right allowing law-abiding citizens to be
armed.  JPFO considers gun control to be moral perversion because it
equates the criminal to the law-abiding citizen.  Video, book, and
tee-shirt are available.

Law Enforcement Alliance of America, 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 421,
Falls Church, VA 22043; 703-847-2677
Executive Director: Jim Fotis
President: Lt. Brenda Maples
Membership: 25,000
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), founded in 1990, is a
non-profit advocacy group that takes a tough stand on law and order
issues.  LEAA's 25,000+ members consist of law enforcement
professionals, citizens, and victims of crime who are fighting for
street-smart, common sense solutions to America's crime problem, such
as:  mandatory sentencing for violent criminals and repeat offenders
life without parole for certain violent crimes capital punishment for
heinous crimes of murder and aggravated rape and legislation to protect
the victims of crime.  LEAA also defends the freedoms guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.  LEAA represents tens of
thousands of police officers across the country who do not believe that
law-abiding firearms owners should be blamed or punished for America's
crime problem.  Rank-and-file cops disapprove of politically-appointed
bureaucrats claiming to represent them while supporting unconstitutional
restrictions on the rights of citizens to own firearms for self-defense
and other lawful purposes.  LEAA believes that any law requiring the
registration of firearms or a waiting period for the purchase of
firearms benefits the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen.

Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment (LEPSA),
P.O. Box 999, Waterford, NJ 98089; 609-629-8724

The Libertarian Party, 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Washington DC 20003;
202-543-1988
Internet: [e-mail]
Call 1-800-682-1776 for free information package by mail.

Lorain County Firearms Defense Association, 165 Harvard Ave., Elyria,
Ohio 44035; 216-329-9977

National Association of Gun and Knife Shows (NAGKS), Route 13, Box 5
Cumming, GA 30130; 800-346-2641, 404-887-1343

National Firearms Association, 4384 Station C, Calgary, Alberta, T2T 5N2
Canada

National Firearms Association (NFA), P.O. Box 160038, Austin, TX
78716-0038

National Rifle Association of America (NRA), 1600 Rhode Island Ave. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20036; 202-828-6000 800-368-5714 800-637-8465
Membership: About 3,300,000
Fee: $500 for lifetime membership
     $25/yr
     $7.50 liberty membership<====================students note
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund (NRA/LDF), 1230 16th Street
NW, Washington, D.C. 20036

NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA/ILA), P.O. Box 1730,
Washington, D.C. 20077-4621; 202-828-6330 (Washington, D.C.),
916-446-2455 (Sacramento, CA)

NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Operation Golden Bear, P.O. Box
3079, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-3079; 1-800-IM4GUNS (464-4867)

National Shooting Sports Foundation, 555 Danbury Road, Wilson, CT 06897;
203-762-1320
Pres./Exec. Director:  Robert Delfay
Membership: 1,100 Companies and Individuals
Publications: Gun Club Directory
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) employs 13 at their
Connecticut headquarters and is not a lobbying organization.  The NSSF
was chartered in 1961, "to foster a better understanding and a more
active participation in the shooting sports."  The NSSF maintains a
tax-exempt educational fund, in addition to its regular organization.
The NSSF serves as a spokesman for the firearms industry and the
legitimate sportsman through press releases, pamphlets and brochures,
and sponsors factual research into gun ownership and the "Hunters Pay
for Conservation" educational program.

New York State Rifle And Pistol Association, Inc.  (NYSRPA) P.O.  Box
1023 Troy, New York 12181-1023 518-272-2654

NorCal LEPSA 2185 The Alameda #3 San Jose, CA 95126 408-947-7678 Fax,
408-947-7800 BBS

North Texas Arms Rights Coalition (NTARC) P.O.  Box 28186 Dallas, TX
75228-0186 214-270-4068

Ohio Constitution Defense Council 12900 Triskett Cleveland, Ohio 44111

People's Rights Organization (PRO) P.O.  Box 2652 Columbus, OH 43216
614-445-8102

Quicksilver Coalition (QC) P.O.  Box 28873 San Jose, CA 95159

Responsible Illinois Gunowners Hunters Target Shooters (RIGHTS) P.O.
Box 43180 Chicago, IL 43180

Safari Club International, 4800 West Gates Pass Road, Tucson, AZ 85745;
602-620-1220
President: Don Kirn
Membership: 20,000
The Safari Club has 115 chapters around the world including 90 chapters
in the United States, and was founded in 1971.  The Safari Club is a
sportsman's organization to encourage conservation of wildlife.  The
group promotes hunting as a wildlife management tool and seeks to
educate people to this effect.  The club's aim is to protect the rights
of hunters.  It maintains the Safari Club International Conservation
Fund which works with other conservation groups and grants scholarships
to students who have attended their American Wilderness Leadership
School.

Shooters Committee On Political Education, Inc. (SCOPE), P.O. Box 206,
25 Malvern Curve, Depew, New York 14043 or Tonawanda, NY 14150:
716-655-0196, 716-834-2139

Second Amendment Foundation, James Madison Building, 12500 NE 10th
Place, Bellevue, WA 98005; 206-454-7012
Executive Director: Alan Gottlieb
Research Director: John Iou
Membership: About 550,000
Fee: $15/yr
Publications: Gun Week (weekly)
              Weekly Bullet (weekly)
              Second Amendment Reporter (quarterly)
              Women and Guns (monthly)
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) shares its staff with CCRKBA, but
the organization does not lobby, given its status as an educational
foundation.  An offshoot of the Citizens Committee, the Second Amendment
Foundation raises funds ostensibly to provide educational and legal
services for gun owners.  It has an interlocking directorate with CCRKBA
and adjoining offices in Bellevue, Washington.  The SAF produces
educational materials "to promote a better understanding of the Second
Amendment."  Both CCRKBA and SAF conduct extensive and frequent
fund-raising campaigns.  SAF produces issue monographs and has
established an attorney referral service.

Secret Order of the Patriot, P.O. Box 740, North Scituate, RI 02857

Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA), P.O. Box 710549, Dallas, TX 75371;
214-369-8772

Threat Management Institute (TMI), 800 West Napa St., Sonoma, CA 95476;
707-939-0303, 707-939-8684 (fax), 707-935-1713 (BBS)

United Coalition for Freedom (UCF), 531 Main St., Suite 434, El Segundo,
CA 90245-3060; 310-322-7244

United Coalition of Florida Sportsmen (UCFS), Florida

U.S. Capitol Office, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 205,
Washington, D.C. 20003
Executive Director: John A. Hosford
Chairman: Alan Gottlieb
Membership:  550,000
Publications: Point Blank, Monthly

Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus,
OH 43229; 614-888-4868
President: James H. Glass
Membership: 1.5 million
The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA) has a staff of 17, with
the goal of protecting the legal right to hunt, fish, and trap and
promote scientific wildlife management practices.  Formed in reaction to
anti-hunting efforts of animal rights groups and related organizations,
the WLFA offers legislative lobbying, legal defense, and educational
services for sportsmen.  It is the legislative and political arm of the
Wildlife Conservation Fund of America.

Women's Shooting Sports Foundation (WSSF), 1505 Highway 6 South, Suite
103, Houston, TX 77077

"A patriot is someone who defends their country from its government"
   -- Bob Dawson

================================================================================

HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATIVE REFERENCES.


For further reading, see:

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, by Gary Kleck (1991)

The Cowboy, the Mountie, and the Samuri:  Should America adopt the gun
control policies of other democracies, by Dave Kopel (1992)

Concealed Carry for trained citizens:  A policy that is saving lives, by
Clayton Cramer and Dave Kopel, Independence Institute in Golden Colorado
(1994)

"The Second Amendment - Our Freedom Guarantee", Neal Knox, Feb. 1988,
Guns & Ammo

The Great Depression:  America, 1929-1941, Robert S. McElvain

The Bonus March, an Episode of the Great Depression, Roger Daniels

Gun Control:  The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Don Kates

Origins and Development of the Second Amendment, David T. Hardy

The excellent essay "A Nation of Cowards", Jeffrey Snyder, Fall, '93
issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published
by National Affairs, Inc.


Here are excerpts of several U.S. state constitutions; I have included
only those that *specifically* mention self-defense:

Alabama
      That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself
   and the state.
      -- Article I, Section 26

Arizona
      The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself
   or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
   be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
   maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
      -- Article 2, Section 26

Colorado
      The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
   person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally
   summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained
   shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
      -- Article II, Section 13

Connecticut
      Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and
   the State.
      -- Article 1, Section 15

Delaware
      A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self,
   family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.
      -- Article I, Section 20

Florida [3]
      The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves
   and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except
   that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
      -- Article 1, Paragraph 8

Indiana
      The people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves
   and the State.
      -- Article 1, Paragraph 32

Kansas
      The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;
   but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall
   not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to
   the civil power.
      -- Kansas Bill of Rights, Section 4

Kentucky
      All men are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and
   inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:...7) The right to
   bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the
   power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from
   carrying concealed weapons.
      -- Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7

Michigan
      Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
   himself and the state.
      -- Article 1, Section 6

Mississippi
      The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
   home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
   legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature
   may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.
      -- Article 3, Section 12

Missouri
      That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of
   his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the
   civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the
   wearing of concealed weapons.
      -- Article 1, Section 23

Montana
      The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense of his own
   home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
   legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein
   contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
      -- Article 2, Section 12

Nebraska
      All persons are by nature free and independent and have certain
   inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ...  the right to
   keep and bear arms, for security or defense of self, family, home,
   and others, and for lawful common events, hunting, recreational use,
   and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or
   infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.
      -- Nebraska Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 1

Nevada
      Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
   defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
   purposes.
      -- Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1

New Hampshire
      All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
   themselves, their families, their property, and the state.
      -- Part 1, Article 2-a

New Mexico
      No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms
   for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and
   for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit
   the carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county shall
   regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
      -- Article II, Section 6

North Dakota
      All individuals...have certain inalienable rights, among which are...
   to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property,
   and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful
   purposes, which shall not be infringed.
      -- Article I, Section I

Oklahoma
      The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
   person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto
   legally summoned, shall never be prohibited, but nothing herein contained
   shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.
      -- Article 2, Section 26

Oregon
      The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of
   themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict
   subordination to the civil power[.]
      -- Section 27

Pennsylvania
      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and
   the State shall not be questioned.
      --- Article 1, Paragraph 21

South Dakota
      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the
   state shall not be denied.
      -- Article VI, Section 24

Texas
      Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful
   defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power,
   by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
      -- Article I, Section 23

Utah [2]
      The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security
   and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State as well as
   for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein
   shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
      -- Article I, Section 6

      The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense,
   but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.
      -- Article 1, Paragraph 6

Vermont
      That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
   and the State...
      -- Chapter 1, Article 16

Washington
      The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
   himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
   section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
   to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
      -- Article I, Section 24

West Virginia
      A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self,
   family, home, and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
      -- Article 3, Section 22

Wyoming
      The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
   the state shall not be denied.
      -- Article 1, Section 24


A study "Crime Control Through the Use of Armed Force", by Professor
Gary Kleck, Florida State University School of Criminology, published in
the February 1988 issue of SOCIAL PROBLEMS, focuses on:

1.  the frequency and nature of private citizens' defensive uses of
    firearms against criminals,
2.  the effectiveness versus risk of such actions, and
3.  the potential deterrent impact on crime of defensive gun ownership
    and use.

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery Incidents

Method of           % Completed     % Attacked     % Injured    Num Times
Self Protection                                                  Used(a)

Used gun                30.9            25.2            17.4       89,009
Used Knife              35.2            55.6            40.3       59,813
Used other weapon       28.9            41.5            22.0      104,700
Used physical force     50.1            75.6            50.8    1,653,880
Tried to get help
or frighten offender    63.9            73.5            48.9    1,516,141
Threatened or reasoned
with offender           53.7            48.1            30.7      955,398
Nonviolent resistance,
including evasion       50.8            54.7            34.9    1,539,895
Other measures          48.5            47.3            26.5      284,423
Any self-protection     52.1            60.8            38.2    4,603,671
No self-protection      88.5            41.5            24.7    2,686,960

Total                   65.4            53.7            33.2    7,290,631

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Assault Incidents

Method of            % Attacked     % Injured    Estimated
Self Protection                                 Num Times Used(a)

Used gun                23.2            12.1       386,083
Used Knife              46.4            29.5       123,062
Used other weapon       41.4            25.1       454,570
Used physical force     82.8            52.1     6,638,823
Tried to get help
or frighten offender    55.2            40.1     4,383,117
Threatened or reasoned
with offender           40.0            24.7     5,743,008
Nonviolent resistance,
including evasion       40.0            25.5     8,935,738
Other measures          36.1            20.7     1,451,103
Any self-protection     49.5            30.7    21,801,957
No self-protection      39.9            27.3     6,154,763

Total                   47.3            29.9    27,956,719

Notes:  (a) Separate frequencies these columns do add totals in "Any
self-protection" row since a single criminal incident can involve more
tion method.  Sources:  Analysis of incident files of
1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

"Significantly, Dr.  Kleck notes that the victimization surveys actually
exaggerated the association of injury with gun-resistance since the
surveys generally fail to ask whether the injury occurs after and
because of resistance or whether the injury occurred first.  In a
supplemental questionnaire, however, it was found that most injuries to
armed resistors preceded their resistance:  "For cases involving robbery
and attack, forceful self-protection actions never preceded the attack
...  even the minority of the cases where forceful self-protective acts
were accompanied by attacks on the victim, few incidents support the
contention that the victim's defensive action provoked the attack."

"As Dr.  Kleck puts it in his study:  "When victims use guns to resist
crimes, the crimes usually are disrupted and the victims not injured."
--
THANX...Gregg   day 214.684.7380  night UNLIST/PUBL   TEXAS NOT CANADA!
[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
*CLASSIC VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR BUY/SELL/TRADE PRE-NINTENDO (ARCADE/HOME)*
"If you quote me on this I'll have to deny it; I won't remember because
I have such a bad memory.  Not only that, but my memory is *terrible*."

--
THANX...Gregg   [e-mail]   day 214.684.7380
*CLASSIC VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR BUY/SELL/TRADE PRE-NINTENDO (ARCADE/HOME)*
"If you quote me on this I'll have to deny it; I won't remember because
I have such a bad memory.  Not only that, but my memory is *terrible*."