Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <348@topaz.ARPA> Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 04:02:37 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.348 Posted: Mon Jan 21 04:02:37 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 05:59:24 EST References: <1745@zehntel.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 78 Warning: this article is biased. It is a reply to the "summary" posted by Chris Johnson. I promise you, however, that it is no more biased than the original... > Reasons for owning a gun: > 1) Self defense > 2) Hunting/Sport > 3) Collecting > 4) Crime > > Why not ban handguns? > Self defense : > con: Stripping 50 million Americans of their chosen tools of self defense would require legal enforcement measures at least as daunting as the crime they are defending against. > pro: Policemen can use machine guns to face down the horrid gunowners. Currently only criminals have machine guns, so we can leave them alone. House to house searches can be made; if we declare martial law we won't need warrants. > Hunting/Sport : > con : If we take away their pistols, they may suspect the rest of our plans--they're not *totally* stupid. > pro : Hunters are stupid louts who only have guns as phallic symbols. They should be symbolically castrated. > Collecting : > con : We should throw them a bone, so we can claim how fair and evenhanded we're being. > pro : Someone might actually use an antique gun to protect himself, and that would be horrible. > Crime : Con : Giving the mob another area of government- supported monopoly would make us a laughingstock. Pro : Removing the last line of defense against crime would leave the people totally dependent on us. Total power would be only a step away. > > > Legalistic argument: > con: Banning handguns violates the constitution. > pro: Nahhh, the phrase "shall not be infringed" only means that we have to leave them some lip-service out, like joining a federally-controlled organization. Next we can use the same reasoning to show that free speech actually means saying what your superior orders, in a federally-controlled organization... > > Alternate method argument: > con: Criminals are to stupid to saw off a shotgun. This is proven by the fact that more of them use home-converted machine guns, rather than the far easier shotguns. > pro: people shot with shotguns, rifles, and machine guns splash so much more spectacularly. That's why so many of us media figures hate handguns! And handguns so often don't kill anyway--it makes us look so stupid to say, "the subway killer, uh, gunman". But the worst of all for us liberals: If handguns weren't available, Reagan wouldn't be alive today! > > Suggested method of implementing a ban: > 1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in. We don't care about the criminals, anyway. > 2) Of course, when they see the law coming, the gunowners will try to sell their soon-to-be worthless guns. So we better make this an ex-post-facto law. > 3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples greed motive in action. Brother turned against brother! Children turning in their parents to the Secret Police! Ingsoc rides again! > > For your consideration, :^), --JoSH