The Voices from History speak...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress.

"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, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant.

"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, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." --- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecuter for the United States of America at the Nurnberg Trials

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of those persons which oppose the upholding of the Second Amendment, a principal lobbyist for the "Brady Bill", in an excerpt from the January, 1984 issue of the National Educator, page 3, an article reveals that Sarah Brady is Chairman of Handgun Contol, Inc., and while lobbying liberal Senator Howard Metzenbaum about gun control legislation, said to him:

"Our task of creating a SOCIALIST America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been TOTALLY DISARMED." (emphasize added)

(Above taken from Militia of Montana's website)

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 11, 1999

Answers

"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 (the right-wing wacko gun nut) Jefferson

BTW, for the historically challenged, TJ was the third President of the United States.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 11, 1999.

Sarah Brady is the wife of a Republican official in the Reagan administration. Howard Metzenbaum is a millionaire Democrat. Why would either one be in favor of a Socialist state? Why would you trust the Militia of Montana on this? What is the URL?

And as long as I'm at it - at least you didn't repeat the myth about Hitler using gun control to eliminate the Jews. This has been exposed an an urban myth.

From the politics section of http://www.laweekly.com

Hitler Studies

The basic NRA line these days (according to its Web site) is that gun owners face a quadruple threat: regulation, registration, confiscation and (only then) incarceration. But the standout argument among gun folks testifying at last months board meeting was that being anti-gun is somehow pro-Nazi.

This contention even popped up in last weeks letters, protesting my colleague Harold Meyersons stance on gun control. It was said that Hitlers registration of the German publics firearms made the Holocaust possible. You hear the same thing on talk radio, and Ive even seen the argument on bumper stickers. So its time to confiscate this increasingly common balderdash. That Hitler confiscated the German publics firearms turns out to be just as big a lie as anything Hitler himself ever came up with.

No Hitler biography I can find supports such a claim. Nor does any history of the Third Reich that Ive seen. What historians do allow is that the Weimar Republic, which Hitler overthrew, did pass gun laws. It had to: The German soldiers returning from World War I had brought home all their firepower, and partisans of right- and left- wing factions were fighting pitched battles in the streets. The main problem with these laws was that they were, obviously, not adequately enforced against Hitlers heavily armed National Socialist thugs.

You can spend hours in any university library (as I have) without finding historical evidence of the alleged Hitler gun law. But the Urban Legend Web site () has already logged it as a fabrication, usually attributed to a nonexistent April 15, 1935, Berlin newspaper citation of a Hitler speech that has der Führer saying, "[F]or the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration." Ken Barnes of the University of Memphis claims no Hitler speech appeared in this paper on this date; nor was this particular speech ever reported. (For my part, I dont recall Hitler ever bragging that Germany was a "civilized nation.") Needless to say, no civilian gun-registration law was passed under Hitler (although Barnes says the Nazis restricted civilian possession of military weapons in 1938).

So Hitler for Handgun Control looks like just another urban myth  like those alligators thriving in sewers and that Texas department stores $500 cookie recipe. Whats tragic is that people who gobble up this nonsense forget the evil law that Hitler really did create in 1935: the Second Nuremberg Law, which robbed Jews of all rights and helped cut off social relations between "Jews" and "Germans." According to scholar Alfred Breitbart of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this was a crucial step in detaching Jews from German society, in order to subject them to isolation, deportation and death.

There were other Nazi laws as well: forbidding Jews to garden, to have pets, to write or act or sing or play music, to practice law or medicine, drive cars, play sports, graduate from school, join the Red Cross, swim or go to the movies.

Nothing about owning guns though. But then, what the NRA types seem hell-bent on forgetting is that Hitlers real purpose was not to disarm Jews, but to eliminate their status as human beings.

-- doubter (whoareU@kidding.com), September 11, 1999.

sorry about the botched HTML - just learning

the complete url for urban folk legends - I won;t try to be fancy:

http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html

-- doubter (whoareU@kidding.com), September 11, 1999.

So, if Jews are to be considered non-human, then their lives and right to protect them -- with firearms -- is then not necessary, right? Can't have the livestock protecting themselves.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 11, 1999.

BTW -- The beginning of the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross has a fictionalized account of how some of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto obtained the arms that enabled the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Book available from www.loompanics.com or www.amazon.com

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 11, 1999.

doubter,...until I dig into the references you cited, I will give you the benefit of the 'doubt' on the German gun laws. We shall see.

I wonder why you so obviously ignored the other valid arguments that support the right to bear arms?

I know who Sarah Brady and Howard Metzenbaum are. What makes you think being a Democrat, a Republican, a Republocrat, or having oodles of money means squat regarding your worldview?

Here is the URL for Militia of Montana in which I found the quotes I posted...

http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html

Their updated link: http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana/

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

doubter,

FYI

Startling evidence suggests that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation. We must call for a full investigation, and the repeal of GCA '68 -- NOW!!

by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Gun Controls Nazi Connection

...We found that the Nazis did not invent gun control in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center- right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? Gun control did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people....

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), September 11, 1999.

Sorry, bad link:

Gun Control's Nazi Connection

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), September 11, 1999.

Dear Liberal Gun Control Advocate , i.e. doubter. Where is your proof ? Your winning arguments are SICKING ! Your a fat, lazy, law loving liberal who thinks he can take away the one thing he is instinctively afraid of; the power of the armed citizens to resist further, TOTAL CONTROL of liberty loving Americans when you legislate your liberal agenda, and try to cram it down our throats. You have over 200,000,000 laws rules and regulations on the books already, and it grows by 10,000 a day ! The REASON the government burned the Dividians to death , was because they DARED to resist the Federal sickos, and had to be made an example of , so Reno ( The DYKE ) and Billy Boy can continue their sickening debasement of American schools, colleges, religions, politics and the family values we once held so high . Your a product of the 30 year campaign, and you DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE IT ! Sad !!! I first voted in 1948 , but last year I stopped, because it's useless, as the system and those in it are rotten to the CORE ! Try helping an independent candidate and see the way BOTH parties malign your issues, candidate and even staple their signs over your posters. Listen to the Great Ma Ha Rushie tell it this last week; winnibg is everything ! Doesn't matter how you get in , just so long as you do. Then, YOU SEE, once on the inside, the NEW crooked politions can acheive their agenda, and to Hell with those who voted them into office ! Got to go now. Soapbox is shaking a little and the old heart can't stand too much excitement. God save America; no one else can ! Eagle

-- Born 2B, Free (Freedomlover@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

Hey "doubter":

The above post did not mention anything about Herr Hitler or the Nazi role in gun control although it appears that Nathan has dealt handily with your assertions.

Why do folks like you always try to muddy up the discussion by changing the subject or raising up a straw dog and then attacking it?

Why don't you respond to Thomas Jefferson? I'd like to hear how he is not quite as wise as you.

Why don't you respond to George Washington? I'd like to hear how times are different?

Why don't you respond to James Madison? I'd like to hear how he didn't have all of his teeth and that he was just some backwoods hillbilly.

Why don't you respond to Supreme Court Justice Robert Parker? Why don't you respond to The United States Constitution? Come on, I want to hear you label all of our founders "right wing wackos" the way our government is today labeling those who believe the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS is an essential foundation stone in the house of Liberty.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 11, 1999.

must be the weekend.....

-- brownshirts (everywhere@this.site), September 12, 1999.

Our own government is quite aware of the ramifications of gun control. That's why they want it so badly. That's also why millions of us will not accept it.

The majority of Americans don't care about freedom, only comfort. It is up to those who do to fight the battles and if need be, die in the effort.

Otherwise, your children and grandchildren will grow up as the veritable property of the corporate/government Nanny State. They will labor their whole lives to create wealth for others. That's what it's all about, gun control, taxes, War on Some Drugs, the degradation of the Constitution. Who rules = who profits, the People or the State?

As important as these issues are, by far the most critical is wresting control of our political processes away from corporate control. As it is now, our government is like Student Governments in schools, a joke and a plaything for the people while the real power lies in the executive suites. Yet this issue is the most impossible.

We can no longer rely on our representatives to "get it". They are already gone, even those who want to can't seperate themselves from the system. They are unable to reform themselves any longer. We are rapidly approaching the point of no return, if we aren't there already.

It doesn't require a crystal ball to see we are in serious trouble.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 12, 1999.

Personally, I'll just stick with the Thomas Jefferson statement, end of story! Anyone who either doesn't understand or accept that simple statement, well, you have a right to vote too. Hope your vote doesn't end up as the new law of the land.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 12, 1999.

About a week ago, maybe longer, there seemed to be a total lack of post by the shill/trolls. Now.... they're back! And it also seems that several of the same ones appear and disappear at the same time. Hmmmm....

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 12, 1999.

The posted quotes from the men who founded this country and authored the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, leave absolutely no doubt as to the meaning of the Second Amendment. No gun control law ever passed in the history of this country is constitutional, and as such is not worth the paper it is written on.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), September 12, 1999.

LA Weekly, referred to above, is a Los Angeles, Calif. weekly throwaway paper. Editorial policy is unabashedly collectivist. Pick a politically correct cause, and they will have a liberal spin on it in their articles. Gun control. Rights for illegal aliens (excuse me "undocumented immigrants") to get free services, including public education and welfare. On and on.

I read it only occasionally, so I missed the article debunking the reality of Nazii Germany gun control, or whatever. Point is -- IT IS NOT AN "URBAN MYTH". Check out the Jews for firearms rigths link above.

-- me (yes@LAWeeklySucks.com), September 12, 1999.

No one is going to change your mind about gun control. I am not concerned about taking your guns away - I am concerned about teenage boys on drugs and former mental patients having such easy access to guns. I don't think that they were the people the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about a well-regulated militia.

But what I am really concerned about is your slandering your opponents as Socialists with ulterior motives, who only want to take guns away so they can steal political power. You can argue about whether gun control is the best way of keeping random mass murder down, but then you have to do the difficult work of evaluating facts and statistics.

Your quotes from Jefferson et al don't prove anything about contemporary America. The technology of weapons has changed drastically since 1776. Personal firearms are irrelevant in clashes between modern government forces and citizens. Do you really think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed, that it would have saved them? The Nazis had bigger guns. And if you want to look at a society where everyone is armed - try Kosovo. Is that what you want?

-- still a doubter (whoareU@kidding.com), September 12, 1999.

Doubter: Your Kosovo "problem" was not caused by guns. In Kosovo you are digging up centuries old animosities and was exploited by people like Clinton to divert attention from scandals brewing at home.

The quote by Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress.

and Jefferson:"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, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

Those quotes and the others prove EVERYTHING about modern day America. Wake-up! Truth is Truth. What was true 250 years ago is still true today and will always be true (until or Lord returns). The problem with you liberal, socialists is that you have a truth that is constantly changing. This is called moral relativism. You change "truth" to suit your perceived momentary needs. To moral relativists, Hitler can't really be criticized because, in your twisted thinking, he may have been doing the right thing for his country at that time - who are you to say, right?

You liberal, socialists would scrap the entire Constitution in a heartbeat (you've just about succeeded) if you thought you could get away with it because you perceive that it no longer applies. That is where you are profoundly wrong, sir. I do fear my government. It has become something very dangerous and it is out of control. Maybe you enjoy being a slave but I don't.

May God have mercy on you and open your eyes. sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 13, 1999.

Mumsie:

Interesting news article posted by Don Joe on c.s.y2k:

(paste job, might not register well)

http://www.detroitnews.com/EDITPAGE/9903/04/sweet/sweet.htm

History gives verdict on self-defense

By Tim OBrien

Black history can provide timely lessons that put todays policy debates in a new light. Take, for instance, the African-American experience with the right to self-defense.

The story starts in September 1925, when Dr. Ossian Sweet moved his family into a two-story home on the corner of Garland and Charlevoix on Detroits east side. A prominent gynecologist and a graduate of Howard University medical school, Dr. Sweet had studied and worked in Europe - including a stint with Nobel Prize winner Madame Curie in Paris - before settling in Detroit.

One might expect that Sweet would be out of place in the poor, working-class neighborhood. And he was. But it was not so much because of his wealth and education as the fact that he was black and the neighbors were white.

After Sweet moved in, a mob of hundreds gathered across the street and grew increasingly ugly. The Waterworks Park Improvement Association, as the mob called itself, had driven another black doctor out of his Detroit home some weeks before.

Anticipating trouble, a dozen police officers cordoned off the area for three blocks around and walked up and down the street between the mob and the Sweet residence.

The Sweet family did their best to maintain an air of normalcy. Mrs. Sweet was in the kitchen preparing dinner, and several family and friends were helping unpack, when the crowd started howling and stones began pelting the house.

Dr. Sweet grabbed a gun and dashed to an upstairs window to get a better - and safer - view of what was going on outside his new home. Just as he saw a car with his brother, Henry, and a family friend pull up to the curb, a rock smashed through the window and showered him in shards.

The now-terrified doctor ran back downstairs to let his brother and their friend into the house as the crowd was screaming, "Heres niggers! Get them! Get them!"

Thats when the first shot rang out. In the ensuing pandemonium, no one is certain how or in what order events then unfolded.

It is certain that six of the 11 people inside the house fired their weapons, as did at least one police officer outside; in fact, he emptied his revolver. Two people in the mob were struck - one fatally. The police, who until gunfire erupted had been little more than spectators, stormed the house and arrested everyone inside, charging them all with murder.

The sensational case polarized the city, but it ended up assigned to a judge whose integrity and personal courage would one day make him a Michigan legend. "This is the opportunity of a lifetime to demonstrate sincere liberalism," remarked the unflappable presiding Judge Frank Murphy, who immediately released Mrs. Sweet on bail.

Nor were the defendants wanting for high-powered representation. Clarence Darrow came into Detroit to handle the case. This pioneer in the cause of "equal protection before the law" spent three weeks on jury selection alone - most of it in a painstakingly detailed recounting of the history of the black man in America.

Following a seven-week trial and three days of often acrimonious deliberations by the all-white jury, Judge Murphy ruled that a verdict could not be reached and declared a mistrial.

Prosecutors decided to retry only Ossians brother, Henry, who had freely admitted firing his gun.

At the second trial, Darrow never denied that his sole remaining client may have fired the fatal shot, but argued that the defendant was justified and acting in self-defense. The second jury (also all-white) took barely three hours to return a "not guilty" verdict.

As a consequence of this incident, the Ku Klux Klan - which operated much more openly in those days - lobbied for and obtained the first round of restrictive gun legislation in Michigan. The Public Acts of 1927 included the requirement that citizens obtain government-issued "purchase permits" following mandatory "safety inspections." Even then, the opportunity to legally carry the weapon would be granted only at the whim of (unaccountable) county "gun boards."

Following racial unrest in major American cities across the country in the early to mid-60s - culminating in "the long, hot summer" of 1967 - the next round of restrictions came from the federal government in the form of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This legislation was modeled on the German Weapons Law of 1938 enacted by the Nazi government.

A revealing feature of the contemporary gun control movement has been the persistent drive to ban inexpensive handguns often disconparagingly called "Saturday Night Specials" - an epithet based on an old racist line that any kind of riotous going-on was a "Niggertown Saturday Night." And, indeed, it is pretty obvious that, at the least, a ban on inexpensive weapons targets poor people, if not strictly minorities.

None of this has proved effective in stemming violent crime because criminals, by definition, do not respect the law. Nevertheless, those who want to fully disarm the law-abiding have discovered a new tactic.

Since the courts have been unwilling and the Legislature unable to accomplish the goal of gun control advocates, several major cities have decided that perhaps civil litigation will hold gun manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their products and choke off the marketplace of firearms.

People are waiting to see whether the mayor of Dr. Ossian Sweets hometown may follow suit. Had Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer done so last week, it would have provided a tragically ironic end to Black History Month. For, as Jews have already discovered, disarming a people is only the first phase in attempting to end their history entirely.

Tim OBrien of Allen Park is the chairman of the Michigan Libertarian Party. Write letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, Mich. 48226, or fax us at (313) 222-6417, or send an e-mail to letters@detnews.com

Copyright 1999, The Detroit News

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@xout.erols.com), September 13, 1999.

still a doubter,

Do you really think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed, that it would have saved them? The Nazis had bigger guns. And if you want to look at a society where everyone is armed - try Kosovo.

Yes, I do believe the Jews could have been saved. To quote a line from the old black and white movie Fail-Safe:

"How far do you think the Nazis would have gotten if every Jew whose door they knocked on had met them with gun in their hand?"

It's not the size of the guns that matter, it's the people holding them and their resolve that matters. Why didn't we send in ground troops in Kosovo? After all, we had bigger, better guns didn't we? We didn't send in ground troops (or many helicopters for that matter) because whenever you put men/equipment within range of other men trying to at shoot them, at least some will get shot.

Btw, during the War in Kosovo New York Magazine ran a photo of an Albanian 'freedom fighter' on it's cover. Know what kind of gun he was holding? A double barrel shotgun. Know why? Because the Albanians had been disarmed just two years prior to massacres. Only a few had hidden guns to defend themselves.

Got any other examples where gun-control has led to GREATER freedom and security for it's citizens?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIl.COM), September 13, 1999.

doubter,

No comment on your original post and its refutation?

No one is going to change your mind about gun control. I am not concerned about taking your guns away - I am concerned about teenage boys on drugs and former mental patients having such easy access to guns. I don't think that they were the people the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about a well-regulated militia.

It's already against the law for criminal juveniles to acquire guns. It's already against the law for the mentally-incapacitated to acquire firearms. Removing the arms of law-abiding, sane people won't make any difference. And why are teenage boys on drugs? Why are known, dangerous mental patients left to walk the streets? Why not attack these problems at their cause instead of the sometimes violent results of ignoring them?

But what I am really concerned about is your slandering your opponents as Socialists with ulterior motives, who only want to take guns away so they can steal political power. You can argue about whether gun control is the best way of keeping random mass murder down, but then you have to do the difficult work of evaluating facts and statistics.

The Socialists only do what the Fascists have conditioned them to do. Read Lott's book on gun control if you are actually interested in whether wider gun ownership and concealed-carry have a positive influence in reducing the "random" violent crime you're worried about.

Your quotes from Jefferson et al don't prove anything about contemporary America.

They prove nothing except how deceitful, manipulative, and treasonous the powers behind the gun control agenda are.

The technology of weapons has changed drastically since 1776. Personal firearms are irrelevant in clashes between modern government forces and citizens.

Your information is incorrect. Even the crudest gun is a formidable equalizer. A basic gun can be used to acquire a better gun. A better gun can be used to acquire a truckload of guns, etc., etc.

Do you really think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed, that it would have saved them? The Nazis had bigger guns.

Yes, I believe it could have saved them. In fact, there is a well-documented 1943 case where a very few poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto gave the Nazis fits. Wide gun ownership, apart from the personal tactical advantage in crime situations, provides a strategic advantage for the citizenry of any nation. That's the whole point of the Second Amendment. The nascent police state will not complete their agenda when outnumbered 20 or 50 or 100 to 1 by an armed people. If they do, they will fail and they know it. They will be hunted down for the filthy, treasonous dogs that they are and brought to swift and certain justice.

And if you want to look at a society where everyone is armed - try Kosovo. Is that what you want?

In what way is the defense of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in any way relevant to your assertion? You're saying, inasmuch, "abolish the Second Amendment or we'll have another Kosovo here in America", as if this is the only possible outcome.

Do you know anything about Kosovo beyond what you've been spoon-fed on CNN? Do you know anything about the history of that area? Do you know the peoples in that region and their past disputes? Do you know anything about the West's involvement in that area this past decade? Did you know that area was recently under Communist rule for over forty years? Do you know anything about these peoples attitudes towards gun ownership? Do you know anything about the local governments' attitudes toward individual gun ownership? Do you know who has been supplying arms into this area and the adjoining regions and why? Did you actually believe everyone in Kosovo is armed?

I understand your fears. You must turn off your TV. Instead of simply regurgitating what the mass media says, read a book and formulate your own opinions. Read some history.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), September 13, 1999.

"Still a doubter" -- so that we (the militia) are armed equally with the government (armed forces and "law enforcement"), we should have anti-tank weapons, mortars, bombs, heavy-duty full auto weapons, etc. Wouldn't that help put a crimp on a busybody motorcycle pig who, needing to make his ticket quota, decides to pull you over for not wearing your bike helmet, not having your seatbelt fastened, or your kid or dog not strapped in properly?

Now, after your heart rate settles, maybe you might consider that while technology changes, human nature doesn't. Post revoluntionay times were not perfect. But pusilaminous pussy whimpering about how can we protect ourselves from the wild and crazy druggie down the street would have been solved very simply back then.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 13, 1999.

"You can argue about whether gun control is the best way of keeping random mass murder down, but then you have to do the difficult work of evaluating facts and statistics. "

Yes, but I found the new Australian facts and statistics to be quite clear, not difficult to comprehend at all.

"Do you really think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed, that it would have saved them? The Nazis had bigger guns..."

Ditto on the Warsaw ghetto information. Read the history and be inspired.

Mentally ill people are more endangered by the liberal's misguided attempts to guard their civil rights than by the gun laws. Don't bother flaming me, ANYONE, on this. I know of what I speak. A close loved one suffered from untreated schizophrenia, and lived like a homeless person, subject to every danger of life on the street, because none of those who loved her could 'force' her to take her desperately needed medication. She could not be 'forced' to get any kind of treatment or hospitalization. And yes, she did have a gun and carry it; HOWEVER, if the laws were humane enough to allow us to mandatorily treat these life-threatening diseases, she would not have had the gun or been wandering the streets. For more information on the problem of our insane laws for the mentally ill, please read "Madness in the Streets". Cannot think of author, write me if you want more information.

"while technology changes, human nature doesn't."

Right on. People aren't getting smarter or "better", that is wishful baloney thinking.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 13, 1999.

"And if you want to look at a society where everyone is armed - try Kosovo. Is that what you want?"

Strawman. Part of the population had been disarmed.

Secondly, when this arguement is advanced, the example of the armed population of Switzerland needs to be addressed. That is the only country I know of where almost every household is armed because of their militia system, but I rarely see it addressed by either side of the gun control issue.

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@xout.erols.com), September 13, 1999.

Kosovo happened BECAUSE the people weren't armed. Nobody with a gun will stand by and allow their women to be raped and their people lined up and shot. AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A JUST AND PEACEFUL SOCIETY, and statistics for concealed carry bear this out. Australians gave up their rights to own so much as a pop-gun, and now VIOLENT CRIME IS UP 40% AS A DIRECT RESULT. There is no purpose behind disarming a population of free people, except to enslave them. More kids and crazies kill themselves with cars, and there is no Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing car ownership. There is no problem with guns, compared to other, solvable problems - child death from drowning in buckets is orders of magnitude more likely than accidental gun-related death, which is extremely rare, but TRUMPETED in the news.

For some, it's a globalist/socialist agenda. Others are projecting their media-amplified survival fears onto gun-owners. Others are acting out a castration-complex. Either way, the only "gun problem" is THEIR problem. And they're going to find out how much of a problem it can be for them if they are ever emboldened by our apparent apathy enough to try for the brass ring: confiscation.

Liberty

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 13, 1999.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution(1788). ................................................... "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our 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, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,1836 ..................................................... "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 refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p.20, S. Padover ed., 1939 "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, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed.,reissued 1967.

-- zoobie the armed (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.