#9 Messages from weapons/firearms forums with food for thought From: Doug Burnham To: All Subj: Re-defining "Machinegun" Assemblyman Klehs has introduced a bill, AB 376, re-defining machine- guns. This nasty little bill would outlaw nearly _all_ semi-automatic firearms! It would amend sec. 12200 of the CA penal code (which defines the term "machinegun") by adding 3 additional paragraphs as follows: "(b) AS used in this chapter, "machinegun" also means any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, as defined in Section 12001, which is designed or redesigned to fire centerfire ammunition and which meets one of the following conditions: "(1) The firearm is automatically fed after each discharge from or by means of a clip, disk, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device having a capacity greater than nine cartridges. "(2) The firearm is automatically fed after each discharge from a self-contained magazine within the firearm that holds more than nine cartridges." The bill also adds a "manufacture" prohibition that isn't in the current version of the Penal Code. But it does allow for the state DOJ to issue a permit for the manufacture of machineguns (just as they currently CAN issue one for private possession of NFA weapons now; I know of NONE issued!). Call or write your local representative and request a copy of this bill NOW! Let them know you disapprove of this back-door attempt to outlaw semi-automatic firearms. To paraphrase a certain media anti- gunner, "Stay aware and informed and don't let ANYONE rip off your guns!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Hendricks To: all Subj: Rational view on bans Why bother to ban Semi-Automatics. Only criminals use guns to commit crimes now. A ban on SNS or Semis will cause those criminals to turn to full-auto guns more likely than not. Banning guns has not had any effect whatsover in Washington, DC after 10 years, they have about 50 people a month killed, mostly with banned handguns. Seems the legislators want all crimes to be committed with illegal guns, instead of legal ones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Hendricks To: all Subj: Our Capitol Washington DC has the distinction of being number one on the murder list in the US. In January '89 they had at least 49 people murdered by guns. They have had a Total Handgun ban for 10 years. They now have no justifiable homicides in the city, just murder. The obvious conclusion is that after successfully banning handguns for the people the criminals now have all the guns. Lack of justfiable homicide means that the people can't defend themselves, and the number of murders being first in any city in the US means the Police can't protect them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD> The only thing these guns are good for is killing another human. AD> AD> I am a hunter myself and have found no reason for using a AD> simi-auto rifle for anything out there as of yet. So why AD> do you care if they band them or not, if you can not use AD> them for hunting what good are they? First, I'll kindly 'thank you' for deciding for _me_ what I should like to own... I think that you should not own any collectible stamps or coins or cars... I guess that persons who collected M1 Garrands during and after WWII were out to kill people and be irresponsible citizens. Who says that hunting is the only reason to own a semi-automatic rifle? I don't think you should be allowed to own semi-auto anything...what do you think about that? Someday, when the U.S. Government comes to your door and asks you to hand in all of your precious 'hunting-only' weapons, you will FINALLY wake up to the reality of life. Owners of both fully and semi-automatic will have fallen by then, and then only you (an apparently weak link in the chain) will stand between us and a totalitarian state. At this point, I weep for our country and constitution. I have little faith in the 'help' that we get from most 'hunter-only' gun advocates. They sneer at the machine-gun owner's plight and the semi-auto owner's cries of foul play. Little do hunters realize that WE could be their salvation. WE are at the forefront of the battle for our population's gun rights, but most are oblivious to this. I do not mean to be totally snide in these remarks, but it is people with attitudes like yours who do not realize what their non-caring attitude does to ALL of our gun rights. Hunting advocates _supposedly_ have nothing to fear from the anti-gunners, and so did the semi-auto owners think until just recently. They thought that since THEY were not part of the problem, that THEY would be SAFE from the ANTI-GUNNERS. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Semi-auto owners would hear nothing of the machine-gun problem. NOW IT'S THEIR TURN TO FEEL THE PRESSURE OF THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE ANTI-GUN FORCES. The message is quite clear for those who will listen. It is my fervent hope that you will think about my comments. I hope that soon ALL of the hunting and semi-auto gun owners will someday wake up and realize that those who are threatened first will put up the fight for all of us. Fraternally yours, John Borland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SS> tool. I have never considered the statment "handguns are only good for SS> killing people" to be a condemnation, but, rather, a recomendation. 99% of all guns are used for nothing more than amusement. They have the prime purpose of assuaging fear, and everything else they are used for is secondary. Your statement that handguns are useful only for killing people is the same political tripe that provides an emotional kick those who don't think before they shoot off their mouths. Besides that, the use of guns to commit crimes is restricted almost solely to the criminal elements of our society, who are the most highly armed segment. Law Abiding citizens commit very few criminals acts with guns. To be specific those professional criminals commit the vast majority of crimes, and they have never been slowed down by gun restrictions, because as criminals they just don't care. Bans, and restrictions affect only the honest majority of people. SS> Acording to some figures quoted in the Cato Institute position paper SS> (#109), the number of uses of firearms for self defence in this SS> country is in the neighborhood of 300,000 per year. Most of these do SS> not result in a death, or even a discharge of the weapon. The display SS> of the gun generally results in the threat leaving...rapidly. SS> SS> SH-: Firearms have given us our Freedom, our Constitution, SS> SH-: and helped to preserve and estalblish democracy SS> SH-: throughout the world with the smallest amount of SS> SH-: loss of life. If you have studied any history, you SS> SH-: would realize that in the days prior to the SS> SH-: ascendancy of Firearms as weapons the Arrow, and the SS> SH-: sword, lance and knife were used to inflict SS> SH-: horrendous suffering, and that warfare then tended SS> SH-: to be total. SS> SS> I'm not sure I agree with you, though I am willing to listen and SS> possibly have my opinion changed. I *do* agree with your statement SS> about guns having been a deciding factor in winning and holding SS> liberty. I just don't know that they are any more humane, or that they SS> have resulted in fewer casualties. There are enough US patriots that do agree that it is sufficient reason for all the dictatorships in the world to fear the civilized nations, and thus are arming totally because they fear an educated armed populace will overthrow them, such as Cuba, Nicauragua, Poland etc. Without large standing armies who are the aristocracy of these nations, they would tend to revert to democracy. Dictatorships such as Marco's were maintained by military power, and fell without it. SS> SH-: firearms reduced loss of life. When combat is close, SS> SH-: prisoners tend not to be taken. When you can sit SS> SH-: across a trench 200 meters apart, honor tends to SS> SH-: survive. SS> SS> Honor tends to survive where both sides wish it to, and where there is SS> room for it. If one side is pressed too hard, honor seems to become SS> less important. There are good psychological reasons not to take SS> prisoners as well in some cases. Ask the Russians about Afganistan. Look at the massacre of the Armenians, 300,000 women and children, by a defeated army. That is a measure of barbarity. Too bad they weren't armed. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto stopped a Nazi Tank brigade for two weeks with 6 guns! The Nazi were afraid they were all armed. SS> Acording to the same Cato Institute report, 1 in 3600 handguns is used SS> to commit a crime. Sounds more like 0.02%, not 1%! Look at the small towns that require all citizens to be armed, and their much lower crime rates as a result. The problem is the politicians and the media are playing to ignorance, and not with a full deck either. SS> Maybe, even probably. What's more important is that the one thing they SS> *don't* do, is reduce crime, which is usually the reason they are SS> proposed. If their main reason for existing is false, then why have SS> them? Very few acts by the government do reduce crime. But, before the profits of Cocaine became so huge, most crimes were falling off. Crime is a result of many young peoples combatitive attitudes, and in most of US society crime rates have dropped steadily for more than ten years. What we see here is the control of the media terrorising the people into believing things are getting much worse. Actually the drive by killings have been going on for decades, just they think they can get by with these laws now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Chuck Mandus To: Tom Grover Subj: NRA article Tom, >>>Chuck, the wish to ban state of the art weaponry has been a problem for those who wish to control for as long as there have been humans.<<< That is why our Forefathers put the 2bd Amendment in. They were wise to realize that if a Gov't got too powerful, we would have the ability to fight it at the worst and check it at the best. >>>To quote briefly from a letter to the American Rifleman magazine by one R.W. Odlin, "...disarming candor...is what Hideyoshi (Shogun of Japan-tcg) displayed in decreeing the 'Great Sword Hunt'(Aug 29, 1588): 'The possession of unnecessary implements [of war] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.'<<< That's what I'm afraid of when these anti-gun nuts like Howie Metzenbaum and "The Brady Bunch" at HCI are trying to do. Some of these people are truly sincere, even though they are very, very misguided, but I think that is not all what these anti-gun groups are made up. I feel there are two strong elements who are our to take our guns away for their gain. The first element probably consists of the camp who want to take our guns away and then throw their weight around. The second group may be out to profit from a black market for weapons. You know how I came up with the "black market" idea. I was sitting and think about this and I asked myself, "Wouldn't the price for weapons that are illegal go up because they are banned?" The same thing happened to alchohol during prohibition. Perhaps a few elements of the anti-gun nuts may want to cash in on the profits. I'm sure organized crime would be happy. This is my opinion and I wanted to toss this out to see what you think. If some shogun wants my arms, I'll give the shogun my shotgun by the end that spews gasses, noise, and lead. B-) Chuck, looking for hidden conspiracies.... End =============================================================================