This is definitely a pretty convoluted issue. Many people don't understand that
'the right to bear arms' was put into the constitution specifically so that the
masses could defend themselves against government repression, and by having an
armed public, the government could be kept in check.
Most of the public is too apathetic nowadays to take this seriously, and would
rather be like 'good little sheep' rather than think about these issues.
On the other hand, there are a lot of irresponsible gun owners out there, who I
believe should be stripped of their rights to keep any type of firearm, this
feeling is reinforced, every time I pass a road sign with bullet holes in it (I
just imagine some jackass yahoos shooting from a moving vehicle..).
As for myself, I've been very torn on the issue of gun control, on one hand
there is stuff on the market that has no business being there, but on the other
hand, if the public did (heaven forbid) have to defend themselves against
repression, shouldn't we be able to own a 'military type weapon' to even have a
fighting chance?
As far as 'break-ins' go, you can bet your bottom dollar, that if a criminal
has
enough gall to come into your home while you are there, he has already prepared
himself to beat/rape/torture/kill, the occupants, so as far as I'm concerned,
the second he steps foot in your home, he's fair game (hunter's term).
- Bryan
PS - I'm NOT a member of the NRA, nor do I keep a loaded gun by my bed
>X-EM-Version: 5, 0, 0, 0
>X-EM-Registration: #3003520714B31D032830
>X-Priority:
>To: "spridgets@autox.team.net" <spridgets@autox.team.net>, type79@ix.netcom.com
>Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL*NO LBC CONTENT* DELETE NOW IF NOT INTERESTED
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>The Constitution does not recognize "sporting use" of firearms. The
>framers had a much more serious intention for civilian ownership.
>Mike MacLean-60 Sprite
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <type79@ix.netcom.com>
>> To: spridgets@autox.team.net <spridgets@autox.team.net>
>> Date: 07/12/2000 8:45:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL*NO LBC CONTENT* DELETE NOW IF NOT INTERESTED
>>
>> Bag of Worms Time.
>>
>> This is an interesting story.
>>
>> I don't think it has a great deal of relevance to those of us in the
>United
>> States, but it brings up questions that always go through my mind when
>the
>> "defense of person and property" argument is raised.
>>
>> What is the occurrence rate of residential break-ins in which the
>intruders are
>> armed?
>>
>> Of those break-ins, what is the rate of injuries, minor or fatal, to
>occupants
>> of those homes?
>>
>> Of those break-ins, what is the rate of successful defenses by armed home
>> owners?
>>
>> Personally, I don't buy these "wild west" arguments. I would feel as
>violated as
>> the next person if my home were burglarized, but I don't think the
>intruder
>> should be put to death for breaking and entering. Gun advocates also
>cannot
>> ignore the unfortunate instances of household members who have been
>gunned down
>> by gun-owning homeowners thinking that their homes are being invaded.
>>
>> With that said, I have no problem with the safe and responsible ownership
>and
>> sporting use of guns.
>>
>> I'm sure this thread will go on for a few dozen messages and I probably
>> unintentionally offended some listers that I consider friends. If that's
>the
>> case, I apologize.
>>
>> Jay Fishbein
>> Wallingford, CT
>> Pellet guns and Slingshots
>> But no hand grenades, land mines, or thermo-nuclear devices.
>>
>
>
>
>--- Mike Maclean
>--- macleans@earthlink.net
>--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.
>
>
|