Time is an irreplaceable resource, one which I never seem to have enough of. Lately, I have been busy with "politics."

For some people "politics" is a dirty word. To those people, politicians are somewhat less prestigious than used car salesmen but slightly better than lawyers. Unfortunately we cannot afford to ignore politicians. Left to their own devices, they have the power to jeopardize our property, our liberty and our very lives.

Being the type of person who follows her own advice, I was talked into running for Attorney General in Massachusetts last spring by a coalition of high tech businessmen and sportsmen. I agreed to "test the waters," as they say, but failed to qualify for the ballot. In spite of that, my candidacy had a number of positive results, not the least of which was the construction of a statewide conservative coalition. A little more time or a little more experience and we would not only have made the ballot, we would have won. Why, some people ask, was I willing to spend so much of my time on that yucky thing called politics? The answer is simple. If people of good will do not participate in politics, then politicians of the rankest kind will control everything.

Just after the termination of my candidacy, the state's anti-gun factions began to push for an "assault weapons" law that had been pending in the legislature. Initially the bill was like a number of other bills introduced across the country that banned a certain list of guns. The bill, in that form, passed the upper house of our legislature.

Sportsmen objected to the bill but the politicians said that polls showed the public supports "gun control." Of course, poll responses are totally dependent upon the question asked. Even I would say we need laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, illegal drug users, and legally incompetent people. I have been told, however, that the private polling designed to determine voter interest in issues indicates that members of the general public who support more gun laws do not consider such laws a priority in determining how to vote. On the other hand, about 30% of the voting public will vote against someone because that person is promoting restrictive gun laws.

Massachusetts has a falling crime rate. Boston is one of the safest cities of its size in the country. There has not been a single documented case of crime being committed with one of the named "assault weapons" in the last eight years for which statistics were available. Nevertheless, the governor, a Republican, and the speaker of the legislature's lower house, a Democrat, decided to make the "assault weapons" bill a priority. When the bill went to the legislature's lower house, sportsmen were promised the bill would be amended so that no guns would be banned. "We will not hurt you," they promised.

The bill emerged from committee shortly before the legislature was to adjourn in July. It was a 64-page monster which bore no resemblance to the original bill. It totally changed the state's firearms laws -- creating new licenses, new fees, and new crimes all of which were directed at licensed gunowners, not criminals. The bill could only be understood if it were read in combination with the statute books by someone very familiar with the relevant court decisions.

Although the bill did not ban any guns outright, it was much worse than an "assault weapons" bill would have been. It struck at the very root of a citizens' right to own any kind of gun for self- defense. The ability to own any handgun and most semi-automatics in your own home was made discretionary with the police. The venerable Colt Gold Cup, the S&W Model 42, and Remington Model 1100 were all classed as "high capacity" guns which require a special permit. All semi-autos with a detachable magazine or capable of having a detachable magazine were reclassified. Worst yet, it is now a 10-year felony to "keep" a loaded pistol unless it has a trigger lock engaged. The store owner who keeps a gun by the register now faces the same punishment as the armed robber who attacks him -- 10 years in jail!

The bill was on the fast track with both the Republican and Democratic leadership pushing to pass it before the legislature adjourned. Few people fully understood the bill. Elected officials were urged to vote for it in spite of a massive outpouring of opposition by sportsmen. Governor Cellucci lobbied for the bill and is said to have told legislators not to worry about the sportsmen, they had no place to go. The bill passed.

This "reasonable" legislation, according to the anti-gun view, requires all gunowners to be fingerprinted. It allows the police to place whatever restrictions they wish on the possession of guns. It makes the continued ownership of all handguns and all semi-automatic guns (including those currently owned) dependent upon a discretionary license issued by the local chief of police. It required guns to be kept cased and under lock and key even to the point that it prohibits veterans' groups from marching with rifles. It makes the sale to a private person of handguns that cannot pass drop and accuracy tests illegal and on and on and on. In one act, the legislature passed much of the anti-gun agenda we have been fighting successfully for years.

Lest any honest person argue this law was "reasonable," it should be noted that the bill removed the right of the gunowner to present evidence in court if he or she were to be denied a license. It also repealed the 90-day grace period that protected handgun owners if their license expired while it was being renewed. The grace period was replaced with a criminal penalty against the gunowner (even if their gun never left their home) if the police fail to process the renewal of the gunowner's license within the time set by the statute!

How this draconian bill passed is instructive. Gun control advocates worked in both parties against gunowners. Their tactics were simple.

The main point is that most politicians voted for the anti-gun bill because they thought it would help them get re-elected, obtain higher office, or gain favoritism with people who have a lot of political power. Most elected officials make deals and form coalitions. Too often those officials have as their only goal their own private interests. That is not to say that there are not legislators who act out of principle. There are, but they are in the minority. To the majority of elected officials, logical arguments are only justifications to be fed back to the people as an excuse for decisions already made.

The only protection we have from the abusive use of government is to exercise our right to control government. You can only do that if you are involved in the political process. That brings me back to my defunct race for Attorney General. Nothing is a loss if you learn from it. We must learn how to use the political system if we are to survive.

If you do nothing else, vote. Even if you have to vote a blank ballot. A "blank ballot" occurs if you go to vote, you take a ballot, and you turn the ballot back without voting for anyone in a particular office. It is, in essence, voting for "none of the above." Blank ballots are counted in the vote totals. When someone is thinking of running for office, they look at the results of previous elections. If they see a large number of blank ballots, it is a sign the incumbent is vulnerable to defeat.

Make sure you vote in the primary. Primaries are more important than general elections. They determine who will be on the ballot. Because primaries generally have low turnouts, your vote is worth more in the primary than in the general election.

If you are not registered, you cannot vote. All eligible voters in your household should be registered unless they are anti-gun. Your town clerk can tell you how to register. When you register, you will be asked, "Are you a Democrat or Republican?" You do not have to declare a party but may remain a voter unenrolled in a party. In most states that is called an "independent." In some states, independents may vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, in others only an affiliated voter can vote in a party's primary.

Sporting clubs should require that all members of voting age be registered to vote unless the member is not a citizen. Clubs should remind members to vote at election time. Clubs can outline the position of candidates in their newsletters or carry stories about particular candidates but they may not endorse a candidate. That is, the club may not tell their members, "Vote for so-and-so" because of IRS regulations governing the actions of non-profit organizations. Individual club members are under no such restraints. Members who are elderly, sick or out of state can vote by absentee ballot. There is no excuse not to vote.

Not only must you vote, you must vote intelligently. Do not vote for, or support, people who are working against your interests. Some gunowners work for incumbent anti-gun candidates because they think the candidate is going to win and that by working for the candidate they will have a "vote" in what that person does. It does not work that way.

Being in public office is corrupting. Even good people are influenced by the influence of power. Candidates want to win. Office holders want to stay in office. After a while, the desire to win becomes all consuming. Positions are not taken because the candidate believes in them, they are taken because the "experts" tell the candidate that the position is popular or that it will get them press coverage, or it will distinguish them from their opponents, or it appeals to some politically powerful person or group. You note, I have not said, "The policy is good for the public," or "The policy will work," or "The policy is moral" or "The policy addresses a real need." To a growing number of elected officials, none of those things are important.

Such actions divide our country into warring groups. They encourage the thoughtless destruction of individual rights. They do not solve the problems they are supposed to address.

As long as you work for, or support, a candidate, he or she will assume: a) you agree with his or her position; or b) if you disagree, your disagreement is not that important. An elected official who takes a public position for you can abandon it any time if he or she thinks it will be personally beneficial. Once an official takes a public position against you, it is very unlikely he or she will change.

Do not continue to support elected officials who vote against your rights. When you tell them, as you should, why you are no longer working for them they will either not care, or, if you have been important to their campaign, they will plead with you not to leave. They will flatter you. They will tell you all about things they did for you. They will say the other guy is worse. The will say any thing they think will influence you. They will not work to repeal the law that hurt you. Their promises are as reliable as an unreformed alcoholic's promise not to drink. If you stay with the elected official you become a co-dependent to hypocrisy.

Work against elected officials who turn their backs on people who initially supported them. They can never be trusted. Deep down they take you for granted and believe you have "no place else to go." That is not true. There is always another candidate. If putting one official out of office will place a stronger anti-gun person in office, work to neutralize the official by gaining control of our elected officials with whom he or she must work. If there are no "other" candidates, run yourself or get a friend to run. Even if you do not win, you have the satisfaction of knowing you have annoyed the official who is your enemy.

Encourage good people to run. Take a campaign course offered by one of the major parties. The fees are minor and the education you gain is very useful.

Early money is critical for candidates. The incumbent or the person supported by party insiders has a great advantage in fund raising. Early expenses need to be met even before a campaign begins. Money will be needed for photographs of the candidate, handout cards, "donor cards" containing information on supporters, letterhead, envelopes, postage, index cards, computer services, and labels are all needed early in the campaign. Later bumper stickers, lapel stickers (buttons are too expensive) and signs will be needed. An office and paid staff will become necessary at some point for all but the most basic local offices. All of these things cost money and require early contributions. Early money is difficult to raise as people often do not know much about the candidate.

When I ran for Attorney General, we raised and spent almost $50,000 in four months. Although we had a lot of people donating to us, many of them were donating relatively small sums. My opponent would get on the telephone in an evening and would convince a dozen or more people to give him $500 each. I would go to a sportsmen's club and have two dozen people give me $5 and $10 contributions. It was frustrating to see people whom I knew were gunowners give $500 to old guard politicians and $10 to me.

As the campaign progressed, we found people were hungry for someone who was sincere. We started building coalitions with people who had similar interests. Coalitions are important in politics. As we gained strength, we gained negative attention from some of the leadership of my own party. In spite of that, we surprised people when we received twice the number of votes at the state convention that we needed to get on the ballot. In addition to getting a percentage of the state convention, we also needed the signatures of 10,000 registered voters to get on the ballot. Although we had well over 10,000 signatures, hundreds of our names were thrown out because people who had signed for us were not registered to vote.

The bottom line is that in the period of four months, three total strangers helped me put together a committee consisting for four people I knew and five strangers. Together we put together a credible, statewide campaign for a major office. It took a lot of time and hard work.

Politicians deal in power. They are interested in getting elected. They are looking for money, workers, people to display signs and bumper stickers and ultimately voters. If you can influence a voting block, you have the medium of exchange used by politicians -- you have power. Gunowners are just starting to learn the political game. We have the perfect organization for it if we get involved and we play hard. Winning for us is not linked to any one candidate, it is preserving the Constitution.

We have lost power in government circles because elected officials do not believe we can hurt them. They do not believe we can work within the major parties to field candidates of our own who are capable of campaigning on a variety of issues important to the public at large. The anti-gun people have convinced the politicians that if both candidates for office take an anti-gun position, that the gunowners will have "nowhere to go." They are wrong!

If you do not want to lose all of your rights, get involved in choosing the government. Register to vote. Vote. Encourage other people of good will to vote. Work for and support those who support you. Work against those officials who are arrogant and insensitive to your rights. Most politicians are not against you. They just find you irrelevant in their plans for political advancement. It is up to each of us to prove them wrong!

By the time this is published, the November elections will be on us. Work and vote for people who support gunowners. Put their bumper stickers on your car and tell them why. If there are no good candidates running in your area, find someone to help in another area.

It is time to plan for elections in the year 2002. If you start now, you will have a major impact.

The Guide to a Complete Gun Ban in the Commonwealth

(by James L. Wallace)

In the last few years, we the citizens of the Commonwealth have been witness to one of the most masterful orchestrations of Constitutional dismantling ever in the history of our young nation. A minority of individuals continues to control the lives of others fostered by a lack of knowledge and an ever complacent population.

For those who do not believe that rights can and are often removed in this country, you may have no need to read on. However, for those that are truly aware of their political surroundings, please take the time to peruse through the events outlined in the following sections. Think how the public could be easily fooled into accepting some of the arguments made for any specific issue.

PART I

History:

In 1996, the Massachusetts Attorney General used Chapter 93A “Regulation Of Business Practices For Consumers Protection” to promulgate and enforce new “safety” regulations on handguns. These new regulations were sold as being under the Consumer Protection Act.

Political Sound Bite:

“The gun industry is one of the only industries in our country that are not regulated under the consumer protection laws. If teddy bear manufacturers and auto makers are forced to adhere to strict safety regulations, why shouldn’t gun manufacturers.”

The Facts:

1) When the actual law, Chapter 93A “Regulation Of Business Practices For Consumers Protection”, was researched it was found that the powers given under this law originates from the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), which have little to do with safety regulations. These laws are actually those that prohibit industry from using unfair and deceptive practices to gain advantage in the business world. In order to comply with this type of act, the Attorney General created a fictitious set of safety regulations on handguns and declared that any manufacturer that did not comply with them would be acting in an unfair and deceptive manner. Advocating for these standards he was successful in convincing the courts, that any manufacturer, which did not comply with the new regulations would be deceiving the public. Thus was created a backdoor consumer protection angle that was based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

2) The firearms industry is heavily involved in setting acceptable standards. This “self regulating” industry adheres to over 800 safety standards that have been created through rigorous testing and evaluations. The industry works together as a whole through a trade association known as SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute).

SAAMI is an accredited standards developer for The American National Standards Institute (ANSI). As an accredited standards developer, SAAMI's standards for industry test methods, definitive proof loads, and ammunition performance specifications are subject to ANSI review and various ANSI criteria.

As for the need for the firearms industry to be regulated similarly to the auto industry, National Safety Council statistics state that children under five years old are 47 times more likely to killed in an auto accident, then they are in an accident with any type of firearm. This would implicate that the supposed “self regulated” industry has a much better track record of safety.

Results:

Since the establishment of these regulations, the legal flow of new handguns into the Commonwealth has been reduced to a trickle. Most manufacturers and licensed dealers are unable to make any sense out of the regulations and have even asked their respective senators and representatives to seek clarification. The Massachusetts Attorney General has rebuffed them all. Apparently, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that he is not responsible for providing any such clarifications. Unfortunately, without the regulations being clarified, most manufacturers and dealers are unwilling to risk the potential fines, which are as much as $5,000 per handgun sold that do not meet the new regulations.

PART II

History:

In 1998 a historically significant gun law was passed. Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998, would turn out to be one of the most incomprehensive and oppressive gun laws in our nations history.

Political Sound Bite:

“All we are looking for here is reasonable gun control. What reasonable person would not support taking guns out of the hands of criminals.”

The Facts:

Since crime, in general, was on the decrease until 1998, there was no justification given for the need of such an oppressive piece of legislation. Although, it was billed as an “Assault Weapons” ban and crime bill, it was not until the actual House votes that any language addressing criminal activities was added.

Results:

Potential license holders would face loss of their license and property for even a minor misdemeanor, literally back to their date of birth. Many citizens that held, formally lifetime Firearms Identification Cards, were caught completely off guard when they were challenged by officers that wished to see their “new” FID cards. No other sector of society would be held up to such a standard.

PART III

History:

At the start of the new legislative session in 2001, yet another bill was filed that would curb the flow of lawful commerce. This newest bill, “An Act to Prevent the Illegal Trafficking of Firearms” was being billed as a means to stop the rash of “straw purchasing” that was said to plague Massachusetts.

Political Sound Bite:

“There is no way any reasonable person could oppose this bill.” “For the life of me, why would anyone need more than one gun a month.”, “Multiple gun purchases only account for 2 percent of sales, but account for 5 to 10 percent of illegal firearms.”, “Asking for better enforcement of existing laws is a cop out.”

The Facts:

This bill is designed to limit the sale of handguns and high capacity rifles/shotguns to one in a thirty-day period. The concept supposedly being that if the state can limit the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens, the flow of firearms to criminals will somehow be stopped. However, once again the supporters of, so called, “reasonable gun control” have contrived a bill that relies entirely on the restriction of lawful commerce to prevent criminal activities. There is not one single piece of this legislation that addresses the illegal trafficking of firearms.

Supporters of the legislation have declared that they have no interest investing resources to set up an instant check system that would allow dealers to verify that a potential costumer is eligible. All of the responsibility, and liability, is placed solely on the licensed dealers. Because of the lack of responsibility taken on the part of the state, the only means a dealer has to determine a potential buyer’s eligibility lies in the section of the legislation that mandates the purchaser supply the dealer with a “written declaration” they have not made a purchase within the last thirty days. The section also specifically prohibits use of the declaration in defense of any action taken against the dealer by the state.

As for the laws that already exist that address trafficking problems, the drafters of this bill, if they were truly interested in preventing illegal firearm traffic, should have done their research. According to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3), 27 CFR 178.126a, any licensed (dealer) that sells more than one handgun to an individual during a period of five consecutive business days, must report said sale on ATF Form 3310.4 and must forward the form to the ATF on the day of the second sale. A copy of the form must also be sent to the state police or the local law enforcement agency where the sale occurred. On the state level, sales of multiple firearms could easily be tracked with the use of the FA-10 form. This form is used for all transactions, both personal and dealer related, that take place within Massachusetts. Also, citizens even though properly licensed are limited to the transfer of no more than four firearms, rifles or shotguns in one calendar year to another licensed person other than a dealer. In addition there is Chapter 269, Section 10E which provides harsh punishments for those convicted of actually trafficking firearms within the Commonwealth.

Results:

Because all of the responsibility and liability does lie in the hands of licensed dealers, the sale of handguns and high capacity rifles/shotguns will most likely come to an end as soon as the law is passed. After all, any dealer who is convicted of a non-eligible sale will face a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment of not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and for any subsequent offense shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. These penalties are all disqualifiers for any firearms licenses in Massachusetts.

Supporters of this legislation will say that licensed dealers would only be prosecuted if they had “actual knowledge that the person has purchased, rented or leased a firearm or large capacity weapon within the previous thirty days”. However, if action is brought against a dealer, how are they to prove that they did not know? It is impossible to prove a negative and given the recent history of the persecution of legitimate firearms dealers by the Attorney General, it is logical to believe that very few, if any, dealers are going to do business under his cloak of political prosecution. It should also be noted that, because of the poor language within the proposed law, prosecutions under this new law would most likely be very costly to the taxpayers and the dealer.

PART IV

History:

At the start of the new legislative session in 2001, several bills were filed that addressed the issue of ballistic imaging. These bills would require that all new handguns and rifles sold in the Commonwealth, be test fired and a sample of the casing and the projectile be provided to the state law enforcement agencies that would then set up a “ballistics fingerprinting imagery library”. The concept was that if all handgun and rifle ballistics were on file, it would make it much easier to solve crimes that involved ballistic evidence.

Political Sound Bite:

Supporters said -- “This is merely a step in the right direction in creating a law enforcement tool that would aid in the solving of crimes committed with guns.”, “Several other states have already implemented similar laws with great success.”

The Facts:

The most obvious detractor of this legislation is that it relies on ballistic evidence collected from new firearms. Because of this, the reliability of any ballistics evidence recovered from a crime scene many years from the testing date would be in serious question. This is caused by the natural wear of firearms as they are used and/or worked on. This continual wear of the rifling and the extractor parts of the firearms would make ballistic matching more difficult with every year that passed. These same changes in ballistic markings would be most likely all a defense attorney would need to have any such evidence thrown out of court.

The cost effectiveness of the program is also in serious question. First of all, the funding to create such an enormous imaging database has not even been discussed by the bills proponents. For instance, as of the writing of this article, the state of Maryland has successfully cataloged only 400 casings at a cost of two million dollars.

The costs to manufacturers must also be taken into consideration. Some of the proponents of the legislation have stated that it would be the manufacturers that would actually be responsible for setting up the imagery systems. Which would place a great financial and legal liability burden on these companies.

Maryland and New York of the states with such a law only require samples of casings. Just this requirement caused the industry problems because each state required different kinds of packaging and labeling for the samples provided. The capturing and packaging of projectiles would cause even greater expense and confusion. We have been told by industry representatives that the technology to capture reliable ballistics evidence for rifles does not exist. Remember, the “casing” is not the bullet. They are two different parts of the cartridge, which require substantially different techniques to obtain samples.

Of course, the success of finding a potential match depends on many things: Was the firearm legally sold in Massachusetts and cataloged? Was the firearm modified in any way (Such as changing the action, or cutting down the barrel which would greatly effect ballistics)? Was the type of ammunition used to provide a sample the same type that was recovered as evidence?

We would hope that before any legislator would jump to support this legislation, they would take the time to research the technical aspects of the ballistics evidence realm. By doing so they would very easily discover what sort of ballistics evidence could be reasonably captured and/or reliably used. Those individuals that take the time to learn, would also find information that would destroy any credibility to the argument that such samples might only cost manufacturers about a dollar each, as some have suggested.

Results:

Since no one has come forward with any realistic projections on how this system would be set up, utilized, or funded, we can only imagine what sort of bureaucratic chaos would be created upon its implementation. The state of Maryland is currently seeking an avenue to “sunset” their ballistics registry system because of the enormous expense and lack of usefulness.

We have been told by industry representatives, that the technology to capture reliable ballistics evidence for rifles does not exist. We can only come to the conclusion that if these bills were to become law, the sale of rifles in the state of Massachusetts would cease. This should also be of serious concern to law enforcement agencies themselves, since there seems to be no exemption for rifles sold to law enforcement agencies, it is reasonable to assume that these agencies would not be able to purchase these types of firearms.

Forward

With these four pieces of legislation and regulation, we can realistically expect the end of all handgun and rifle sales within the state of Massachusetts. This being the case, the proponents of more firearm regulation or legislation can be seen in no other light than someone who is seeking to end the private ownership of firearms. This is not a case of a “paranoid, radical, gun lobby” trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The facts are plain and simple. All of these bills and regulations have been drafted without consulting the industry or the representatives of gun owners’. With this in mind it is logical to assume the supporters do not want our assistance because they do not accept our existence.

The irrefutable fact is that as our rights to Keep and Bear Arms diminishes, society as a whole worsens. As cities and towns outright ban guns, their crime rates sky rocket. The media continues to show us that violent outbursts in certain areas, such as near schools or private office buildings, are becoming more common. Is this trend because there is a greater threat in these areas, or is it because government’s and industry’s bans on the lawful possession of firearms in certain areas has created free fire zones for criminals.

As society continually tells children that guns are evil and represent violence, these children react in a manner that they feel is expected of them when they come in contact with them. As government, impotent at reducing crime, further restricts the lawful ownership of firearms in its attempt to create an illusion as an answer to criminal activities, the criminals get further out of control while the law abiding suffers from the actions of both parties.

Can anyone honestly say that as we, as a society, have begun demonizing firearms and shirking responsibility for personal actions, that we have improved anything in our lives? The answer is absolutely no! Since 1998 crime in Massachusetts has begun to increase. The blame for this lies in the hands of those who sponsored and supported Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998. The legislation was supposed to have had an effect on crime. Unfortunately, as we tried to inform legislators some three years ago, it actually became a catalyst that created an increase in crime.

It is time we as a society returned to our roots and remodeled our country to be one of strength, dignity and pride. This will never occur as long as law-abiding citizens are being held accountable for the actions of criminals.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

	Career Skills \| Health/Fitness \| Life Skills \| Translators
	Bookmark us: Control D

+Guns: Firearm facts

Guns. Should we ban them or not? If banning guns means saving lives, then let's get to it! Here are some facts to consider.

Deaths from gun injuries

Last year, about 50,000 Americans died from gun-inflicted injuries.
About 90% of them were committing a crime at the time, so...
Last year, about 5,000 law-abiding Americans died from gun-inflicted injuries.

Gun-related deaths are way down the list of causes of death. Other causes, such as bad driving practices and bad diets kill far more people. We don't see a call for a ban on public use of automobiles or on McDonald's, do we? Why not? OK, let's look at leading cause of death and see if guns merit any attention:

Deaths from tobacco:

Last year, about 500,000 American smokers died from tobacco-inflicted illnesses.
Smokers make up about 25% of our population.
Cigarettes have no way of knowing who lit them--everyone breathes the same smoke. Only a fraction of the smoke produced goes into the smoker via puffing, and the human lung has no way of rendering smoke harmless. Thus, smoke is smoke. Given the propensity of smokers to puff away around nonsmokers, it is conservative to say another 500,000 Americans died from smoking, last year. So...
One million Americans died from tobacco, last year.

Comparing deaths

Death by gunshot is usually fairly swift and merciful
Death by cigarette follows a long erosion of quality of life, often with great financial burden, emotional misery, and physical pain.
Each year, 200 times as many Americans die from tobacco as from guns.
If you had a switch with only two positions: "kill 200 people at random" or "kill one person at random," which position would you choose? You would certainly choose to spare 199 people, would you not? Why, then, would anyone with a shred of common sense even care about gun-related deaths as long as tobacco is around? Duh!

Things we would like to ban:

From the discussion above, it's clear any decent society should ban tobacco. But doing so is futile. Let's look at other harbingers of death we'd like to ban:

Tornadoes
Hurricanes
Floods
Droughts
The IRS
Viruses
Cockroaches
Air pollution
Wild tigers and lions and bears
And, in some cases, really stinky bathrooms.

Do you see that banning any of these, other than the IRS, is simply dumb?

What a gun ban would do:

To protect 5,000 Americans, we would put 250+ million at risk. How so?

Passing laws against robbery murder has not stopped people from robbing and murdering. Thus, passing laws against guns will not stop dope dealers, organized crime families, terrorists (including the IRS), or crackpots from having them.
Passing laws against guns will prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. This means we are more distrustful of law-abiding citizens than we are fearful of people whose career goal in life is to rob and murder. Insane? Hmm.
The police are not our private 24-hour personal bodyguards. There are not enough police to go around to each home. There are more criminals than police now, and the job of the police is normally after the fact. Thus, when it comes to protecting yourself, you are on your own. Thus...
If criminals always have an extreme advantage, via exclusive use of firearms, then they will rule the land (even more so than they do now, via organizations like the IRS).
And, those 45,000 Americans killed while committing a crime would be free to kill the 45,000 people who would have stopped them!

This is not just theory. Think through the logic. And, if that doesn't convince you, read about the effects of Australia's gun ban or just look at the crime numbers for such pro-crime cities as New York, Chicago, and Boston--where gun bans are in force. Or look at the crime numbers for those anti-crime Florida cities that enacted right-to-carry laws. The facts don't lie: ban guns = crime goes up; promote responsible gun ownership = crime goes down.

This isn't Rome

Rome existed and flourished for centuries. Then, the rulers banned private ownership of weapons. This allowed tyrrany and incompetence in government so bad, the nation fell in a generation (and you thought it couldn't get any worse than it is now). Gun ban proponents think their fellow citizens are raving lunatics kept in check merely by difficult access to guns, when it's really the other way around--we need guns to help us protect ourselves from raving lunatics. And from government corruption of the sort that happened in ancient Rome or in Hitler's gun-banned Germany.

To kill or not to kill?

The right of a living creature to defend itself is a right granted by nature. It is not a privilege granted by law. Personal protection is a personal responsibility, not that of a cop who makes less than the average wage in an already stressful job. Your choice is to kill the killer or let the killer kill you. If you let the killer kill you, then that killer is free to kill and kill again. And you are an accessory to each subsequent crime. All because you did not value human life enough to provide a way to defend your own. This is not theory or opinion. It just is.

To ban or not to ban

Banning guns does not save lives--it has the opposite effect. We have shown here that gun bans increase crime. Further, deaths from guns are statistically insignificant compared to other causes, many of which are preventable. Smoking, for example, serves no useful purpose.
The IRS, which destroys thousands of lives each year, is an extremely inhumane, expensive way to collect taxes--you could do the same thing civilly and far more efficiently with a national sales tax or by letting the fed collect from the states instead of individuals. There is no economic value to the IRS. Guns are a different story. You can use a gun to provide food. You can use a gun to protect your family. You can use guns to protect the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Did you know Hilter credited much of his success to a ban on guns? Do the math.

guns_01.gif,guns,firearms,weapons,rifles,pistols,shotguns,ammunition,defense,guns,firearms,rifles,shotguns,skeet,ammunition,pistols,sidearms,ammo,weapons,military,police,service revolver,automatic pistols,semi-automatic,magnum rounds,2nd amendment,second amendment,nra,national rifle association,shooting sports,hunting,plinking,weaponry,target shooting,indoor shooting range,outdoor shooting range,clay shooting,sport firearms,guns,firearms,weapons,rifles,pistols,shotguns,ammunition,defense,guns,firearms,rifles,shotguns,skeet,ammunition,pistols,sidearms,ammo,weapons,military,police,service revolver,automatic pistols,semi-automatic,magnum rounds,2nd amendment,second amendment,nra,national rifle association,shooting sports,hunting,plinking,weaponry,target shooting,indoor shooting range,outdoor shooting range,clay shooting,gun bans,gun freedom

We highly recommend this book on guns:
1998 Standard Catalog of Firearms : The Collector's Price & Reference Guide (8th Ed)

List Price: ~~$29.95~~
Our Price: $23.96
You Save: $5.99 (20%)
Availability: This title usually ships within 24 hours.

Click on the image to order this books.

Click here to see all of our books on guns and firearms

Click here to see all of our movies on guns and firearms

Some Gun Websites

Huge selection of gun books
http://nralive.com
The effects of Australia's gun ban
Big Guns Exhaust
Guns & Knives Gun Shows
NRA.org (National Rifle Association)
buy guns, sell guns, trade guns
UsedGuns.com
Landry's Guns
Macho Women With Guns
Avalon Guns
Tyko Guns Optics and Hunting
Apacheria Traders - antique guns
Gary Reeder Custom Guns
Guns, Gun Rights, Second Amendment
JC's Guns and Tackle Shop, Inc.
CMU Gun Club
Guns-N-Babes!
Russian Guns and Firearms
The Shootin Iron
Ultimate Weapons Systems
Convey: Guns & Ammo
Guns - Shotguns - Rifles
gunshop.com
Hallowell Fine Sporting Guns
Flanary's Guns Inc
GUNS R US
Hill Rod and Gun
Hyatt Guns, Charlotte NC
Cogswell & Harrison Gunmakers
Winchester
Firearms and Freedom - News
American Arms International
Guns . Handguns . Shotgun
Guns for sale, gunclassifieds.com
Guns & Crime Test
Landry's Guns AR-15
K-Arms - Guns, Ammo, and More!
Tullanisk shootin
White River Arms
J. M. Davis Arms and Historica
Guns Plus
Guns & Things
Guns, Gun Ammunition
Gun Accessories
rec.guns FAQ

Find Us On TheGunSearch.com:

NAZI LAW (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior)

"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation…Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions …will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.

MORE QUOTES: Everyone on Liberty

These keywords may have brought you here: guns,firearms,rifles,shotguns,skeet,ammunition,pistols,sidearms,ammo,weapons,military,police,service revolver,automatic pistols,semi-automatic,magnum rounds,2nd amendment,second amendment,nra,national rifle association,shooting sports,hunting,plinking,weaponry,target shooting,indoor shooting range,outdoor shooting range,clay shooting

LE FastCounter

Click here for automatic notification when this page changes
Shop at the places we recommend to our closest friends.
Webmaster section
Comprehensive site page listing
Mindconnection is an ePublic Eye Registered Safer Shopping Site
Don't make all of your communication electronic: hug someone today.
Copyright © 1997-2002, Mindconnection, Merriam, KS
This info box last updated February 09, 2002

In Their Own Words

It’s high time to gun down the 2nd Amendment.

— title of September 17, 1999 anti-gun essay

by USA Today columnist Walter Shapiro

We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who

is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence.

— Washington Post editorial, August 19, 1965

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is

necessarily ... going to be very modest.... 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 handguns

being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to

get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the pos-

session of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for

the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting

clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.

— Nelson T. Shields, as quoted in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976.

Mr. Shields preceded Sarah Brady as chairman

of Handgun Control, Inc.

I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or

possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and

licensed target clubs).... It is time to act. We cannot go on like this.

Ban them!

— Senator John H. Chafee (R-R1)

Washington Post op-ed, June 9, 1992

...if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law,

then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation....

[A]s you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to com-

bat gun violence doesn’t end with the Brady Bill — it just begins.

— Sarah Brady, Chair of Handgun Control, Inc., undated 1993

fund-raising letter to HCI members (emphasis in original)

The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take a

step at a time and go for limited access first. Lawmakers are scared

of this issue. If we create anger and outrage on a national level, it

would really help the local folks.

— Joyner Sims, deputy commissioner in charge of injury control for

the Florida State Health Department, quoted by the Chicago Tribune,

October 31, 1993

...we must severely constrict if not virtually end the private posses-

sion of guns

This country does not need one more gun in circulation; in fact, it

needs about 200 million less.

— Los Angeles Times editorial, November 8. 1993

Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun.... The stated goal

of the most active supporters of restrictions, aside from the “moder-

ate” goals they often espouse in the heat of legislative battle, is to

abolish gun ownership totally.

— Michael

K. Beard, President, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,

quoted by the Washington Times, December 9, 1993

I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, ex-

cept for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we’re prepared

director of the Violence Policy Center, op-ed, "Laws That Can’t

Stop a Bullet,” New York Times, November 4, 1999

I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your

right. I say, “Sorry. It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You

are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you

should go to prison.

— Rosie O’Donnell, April 21, 1999

I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban

assault weapons like the weapons used here.... These semiautomatic

handguns ... they really have no place in our society,

— Vice President Al Gore, September 16, 1999 on Larry King Live

States should work toward the introduction of appropriate national

legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that

define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and

traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the pro-

hibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and

light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as

automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

— The United Nations’ Report of the Group of Governmental

Experts on Small Arms, August 19, 1999

In the long run, we must go the last mile.... The law must embody

the public policy goal of ridding our homes and communities of hand-

guns through restrictive handgun licensing.

— J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland,

A Farewell to Arms: The Solution to Gun Violence in America

October 20, 1999

A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and imple-

mented soon.

— Violence Policy Center,

Why America Needs to Ban Handguns, March 1, 2000

to get rid of the damned things en-

tirely — the handguns, the semis

and the automatics.

— Essayist Roger Rosenblatt,

Time, August 9, 1999

...we never face up to the obvious

preventive measure: a ban on the

handy killing machines that make

the crimes so easy.... A gun-con-

trol movement worthy of the name

would insist that President Clinton

move beyond his proposals for

controls ... and immediately call

on Congress to pass far-reaching

industry regulation like ... [a]

measure [that] would give the

Treasury Department health and

safety authority over the gun in-

dustry, and any rational regulator

with that authority would ban

handguns.

— Josh Sugarmann, executive

Just the beginning: "Our campaign

...to combat gun violence doesn’t

end with the Brady Bill" — it just

begins,” said Sarah Brady.

THE NEW AMERICAN • JUNE 5, 2000 - page 17

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

WOMEN AND GUNS
Time v. Politics

By Karen L. MacNutt, Contributing Editor

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV

+Guns: Firearm facts

Deaths from gun injuries

Deaths from tobacco:

Comparing deaths

Things we would like to ban:

What a gun ban would do:

This isn't Rome

To kill or not to kill?

To ban or not to ban

Click here to see all of our books on guns and firearms

Click here to see all of our movies on guns and firearms

Some Gun Websites

In Their Own Words

WOMEN AND GUNSTime v. Politics

By Karen L. MacNutt, Contributing Editor

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV

+Guns: Firearm facts

Deaths from gun injuries

Deaths from tobacco:

Comparing deaths

Things we would like to ban:

What a gun ban would do:

This isn't Rome

To kill or not to kill?

To ban or not to ban

Click here to see all of our books on guns and firearms

Click here to see all of our movies on guns and firearms

Some Gun Websites

In Their Own Words

WOMEN AND GUNS
Time v. Politics