[Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases

Tue Nov 11 11:52:44 PST 2008

exactly
-----Original message-----
From: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" editor at lataheagle.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:24:47 -0800
To: "Scott Dredge" scooterd408 at hotmail.com,  mike_l_f at hotmail.com, "viz" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases

> With a Democratic, avowed anti-gun president about to take office, along with Democratic majorities in both houses, the pathway to gun banning is much smoother.
> What do I have at stake in this? Nothing, as far as guns are concerned, I don't own a gun. I don't have time to hunt very often, and my camera gear takes away from any "gun budget".  I loved hunting birds when I was younger
> However, the way I see it, the only way for a gun ban to work would be by a reduction in Fourth Amendment rights, which would allow police to make searches and seizures without probable cause. We've already seen these rights come under assault with the current president AND legislators, Democratic and Republican, with the Patriot Act, which should have been called the "Fear Act" because it was passed due fear, not patriotism.
> Should this happen, there will be people who will speak out, if enough of them do, the government will be forced to shut them up. The easiest way to do that would be to curtail our First Amendment guarantees.
> The Bill of Rights is the archway under which democracy passes, if any of the amendments are removed, the arch will collapse, taking the rest and killing our freedoms.
> It should be obvious that the amendments in the Bill of Rights are interdependent. Unfortunately, people tend to have tunnel vision and only look at one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Scott Dredge 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:26 PM
> To: mike_l_f at hotmail.com ; viz 
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases
> 
> 
> There isn't much support for reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.  There would need to be some kind of catalyst like there was with the Stockton Massacre back in 1989 where some unstable guy got ahold of a semi-automatic rifle and shot up a bunch of school children.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre
> 
> Before the ban took effect, sales increased dramatically on AK-47s and Colt AR-15s.
> 
> As far as I know, the VA Tech Massacre last year did not produced any changes in gun control laws or lack thereof.
> 
> It's interesting to read about how 'the sky is falling' on 2nd Amendment rights.  This Obama character looks to be an unstoppable juggernaut which is quite a contrast to an impotent George W. Bush.  I wonder why.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> 
> > From: mike_l_f at hotmail.com
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:26:43 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases
> > 
> > Setting aside anything that Senator Obama may have said or done in the past, 
> > people are concerned about his effect on honest gun owners because on the 
> > http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ web site there is this statement -
> > 
> > "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent"
> > 
> > If you aren't familiar with firearms that may seem reasonable, but when you 
> > look at the details it's pretty obvious that it's not an effective tool 
> > against crime. First, the government admitted that “... the weapons banned 
> > by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were 
> > used only rarely in gun crimes”. (National Institute of Justice, March 
> > 1999) Secondly, there was no positive effect. Violent crime has continued 
> > to trend downward since the ban was lifted, and rifles of any description 
> > continue to be involved in a tiny percentage of crimes.
> > 
> > The law was based largely on the way rifles look. Features such as barrel 
> > shrouds, pistol grips and other ergonomic features may set them apart from 
> > classic walnut stocked sporting rifles, but seem pretty trivial from a 
> > criminal perspective. The two mechanical features mentioned are that these 
> > firearms have a detachable box magazine which can hold several cartridges, 
> > and the self-loading action allows you to fire one shot with each pull of 
> > the trigger until the magazine is empty.
> > 
> > By comparison I was looking at a 1950's Remington Woodsmaster rifle in Sure 
> > Shot sporting goods last week. It has a fine walnut stock, is self-loading, 
> > has a detachable box magazine and fires the 30-06, a far more powerful 
> > cartridge than almost all of the rifles on the "Assault Weapons" list. 
> > There are many hundreds of thousands of rifles similar to that in hunter's 
> > closets around the country. Do you wonder that they are concerned about 
> > laws banning similar firearms?
> > 
> > But people say they only want to ban firearms which can shoot 20 or 30 times 
> > without reloading. It would be pretty easy to put a larger magazine on the 
> > Woodsmaster or it's cousins, and I wonder when they will decide that also 
> > includes shotguns. If you load your pump shotgun with five 00 buckshot 
> > cartridges and fire until it's empty, you will have sent 45 heavy lead .33 
> > caliber balls at your target. They won't travel as far as a rifle bullet, 
> > but anyone within 100 yards will be in deadly danger.
> > 
> > In other words, banning a category of weapons which are only cosmetically 
> > different than common hunting rifles, and no more lethal than common 
> > shotguns seems like a cynical first step towards - what? There is no 
> > evidence it's for crime control.
> > 
> > In 2003 the Center for Disease Control published a review of studies from 
> > several countries. They state that they found "insufficient evidence to 
> > determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for 
> > preventing violence". (Wikipedia) It seems that criminals are willing to 
> > break laws to get weapons. There have been several academic studies which 
> > revealed many benefits that honest citizens gain from owning firearms for 
> > self defense, but this is already too long to go into that.
> > 
> > This country has done well over the last two centuries for several reasons. 
> > One of them is the balance of power. We have been suffering through a 
> > period where one group has been acting to restrict some of our rights. This 
> > years election can probably be seen as a reaction to that. The pendulum 
> > swings. If the government distrusts the citizens so much that it fears 
> > leaving them effectively armed, at some future date will the party in power 
> > decide that elections are too dangerous, and they now have the power to stop 
> > the pendulum?
> > 
> > - Mike
> > 
> > Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
> > hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
> > -- H. L. 
> > MENCKEN
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live Click here 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ======================================================= 
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle
>