[TheForge] OT RE: Criminal Background Check

[Grover.Richardson at gtri.gatech.edu]

If guns kill people, then forks make Rosie, well to be polite, huge.  Yes, let's round up all the guns and punish them for being bad.

In an armed society, there are fewer victims.  Look at the Kennesaw Georgia crime statistics vs. other nearby areas.  They require citizens have arms at their homes (loosely paraphrased).

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  Look at the statistics from Australia since they "confiscated" theirs.  Gun crime in England is still a problem, though their guns have been outlawed for quite a while.  Then again, they have a different background from us.  For us, guns were (and still are, particularly in the urban environment) a means of self protection and acquiring food (admittedly more in the outlying areas, though many folks I know live in urban areas and travel to the outlying areas to hunt).  For the Brits, guns are a means by which the disenchanted populace try (tried several times) to take power back from those who made their lives less than optimum (being polite here for the Brits who may be reading in the background, nice folks).

In all things it is necessary to go back to the original source, not to be misled by politicians and newspapers.  Even then look at the way in which the data was acquired.  There are lies, dogone lies, and statistics.

Gun crime in Atlanta is up, however gun thefts are NOT investigated.  Car thefts are NOT investigated (in many instances).  If the laws currently on the books were PROPERLY enforced we would be in a better state.  I personally believe in the death penalty, but I am firmly convinced that is will never work.  Why, because it is enforced with the same skill set by which "they" enforce the 55 mile per hour speed limit on our highways.  Why does this situation exist?  Well, that is a discourse for another day, and probably not suitable for an august medium such as this.

In the land of fang and claw, politeness reigns supreme, merely due to the immediate response to the lack there-of.  Watch a group of cats some time.  Much may be learned about armed disagreement.

All the Best



-----Original Message-----
From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Freeman
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:32 AM
To: Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check

So, let's look at the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Clearly, this applies to a Militia, not to personal armament.  The
concept is a town or county or state putting together a militia in
which the people keep their weapons.  This does not include the
concept of a personal article.  Also, what is a "weapon"?  Is an
atomic bomb a weapon?  I don't think so.  So, where do we draw the
line?  Currently, individuals are not supposed to own fully automatic
weapons, though perhaps there are exceptions.  This is reasonable
because a fully automatic weapon makes one man the equivalent of a
large number of persons not so armed.

In my opinion, there should be controls on hand guns (not that there
aren't already) because they are by their nature principally designed
for use for killing people in non-militia situations.  Furthermore, I
believe the Federal government should be intimately involved in
preventing interstate commerce of firearms where the recipient state
regulates them.  NY City has had to sue dealers in southern states
(successfully, I might add) because they were conspiring to move
weapons to NY, against NY laws.  This should not have to be a civil
action.  These are criminal actions and should be prosecuted under
RICO.

I really have no problem with reasonable hunting weapons, not that I
want anyone pointing one at me.

I fully realize others will disagree with my opinions.  I have
entertained different notions of what I might consider "good policy"
with respect to guns.  If you haven't read Robert A. Heinlein's early
novel, "Beyond this Horizon," I suggest you do.  As a novel, it's
mediocre, but it describes a society in which ordinary citizens
usually carry guns, and duels are not uncommon.  It strongly advocates
this policy.  But it also shows the consequences - "dueling" can be
used to conceal murder.  The faster draw lives, the slower dies.
Limited insurrections can easily occur, claiming many innocent lives,
though the citizens themselves may very well put them down.  It also
suggests that people would be more polite.  A very interesting
concept, but I expect the death rate would be much higher than it is
now.