#41

    Anti-firearm hysteria is caused, largely, by the fact that
firearms are inextricably equated with death; no matter how
sophisticated one might be, death is an extremely difficult thing to
be sanguine about, it is something very personal and has a high
emotional content.
    Of course, the fact that the vast majority of us dice with death
daily on the freeways; that we can, with equinamity, daily climb into
machines, the improper use of which have caused tens of thousands of
deaths, injuries and mutilations annually is proof of nothing except
the proposition that sentinence in no way implies rationality.
    The pro-gunners are fond of pointing out that 'cars result in xxxx
deaths yearly, while firearms account for only xx deaths,' to which
the anti-gunners retort, 'yeah, but cars aren't designed to kill
people, guns are.' Whoa. I detect a logical contradiction: If cars
aren't designed to kill people, yet they indisputably result in far
more deaths than things that putatively are solely designed for that
purpose, AND YET THEY CONTINUE TO BE USED, this is something that
defies all rationality, and, incidentally, neatly counters
anti-firearms arguments.
    The old 'when guns are outlawed, only etc., etc.,' scenario has
been bumperstickered to death. Yet, like most triteisms, there is a
good deal of truth to it.
    The current fear, that this anti-'assault weapon' hysteria will
result in a permanent ban being placed on these devices and will leave
the door open for further abuses (confiscation) by gov't is very real,
on both counts. Outright bans are being considered in many state
legislatures and also in congress. For the second part, the most
casual observer should be able to see that, in _every_ society that
has registered its weapons in the past, confiscation has inevitably
followed.
    Some things that make me angry about these propositions are, the
implication that, just because I choose to possess a semiautomatic
firearm, I am labeled a criminal or a mental defective or worse; that
someone elses concept of what is 'needed' should be allowed to govern
my actions; and that, in the end result, confiscation parses out to
theft, pure and simple. The fact that it was done by the gov't in the
public interest simply makes it theft done by the gov't in the public
interest, which is no better than, say, theft done by Al Capone in Al
Capone's interest.
    Some people have brought up arguments of the general form, "What
if fair compensation is given for the weapons confiscated?" Aside from
the fact that there is hardly enough money in circulation (besides,
since WHEN did you ever hear of the gov't giving fair compensation?),
there is the little factor of 'what if somebody doesn't WANT to
surrender his firearm at _any_ price?' Then what? Take it from him
anyway? In which case, you're back at square one with theft. Besides,
I b'lieve that most definitions of theft simply hold that theft is the
taking of a thing from a person without his knowledge or will. Note:
there is NO mention of giving the person (what you feel is a) fair
compensation for the article(s), being a defense.
               Free men possess arms, slaves don't!

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