From: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>No it isnt the best argument.
>If people really want their handguns back, (me included), then the self
>defence argument is a non starter.
>If the arguments for sporting shooting arent effective, the right to carry
>for self defence is never going to materialise.
>Anyone who thinks it is valid as an argument, I strongly suggest looking on
>the Sportsmans Association BB.
>Various people advocate the right to summarily execute any intruder, publ;ic
>executions carried out by FAC holders, etc etc.
>Because your self defence argument will be hijacked by extremist latent
>sociopaths such as this, it is bound to fall before it ever gets off the
>ground.
When government is stern but fair, good people will comply with the
law. When government demeans people and treats them like children,
naturally they become rebellious and loud. This is not a comment
on your government, it applies here in the US too.
I would like to suggest an experiment. Identify a gun friendly
police office and get them to run an experiment using exemplary
citizens. Issue those people handguns and allow them to carry
them concealed...letting them know that the police will come down
on them like a ton of bricks if they misuse those guns, that
they'll never see the outside of a cell again.
I guarantee you that they will react the way concealed handgun
carriers in the US have: with great restraint and responsibility.
>I think it was Jonathan who rightly pointed this out elsewhere. Each branch
>of shooting has its supporter, and damn the rest of the shooting world.
>I am sure there are people here who couldnt give a damn about deer stalkers.
>I equally couldnt give a damn about the self defence argument. I would
>support target shooters, but would never support those who want to own fully
>auto's.
I'm willing to support the other fellow's game but am disappointed
with what I've found over here. When I wanted to shoot handguns
and rifles at targets, every shooter I talked to invited me out
to the range.
In contrast, I've been asking about hunting (re: safety I am a certified
firearms instructor) and all I get is "good luck, chum". This
difference may be ominous to the future of hunting in the US.
re machine guns: I can see regulating them a bit more strictly
than other firearms but they're too regulated in the US. And I
would probably never own one even if they weren't. I never
bring home what I can't afford to feed... :)
Don
--
The law relating to machineguns in the US is beyond words. It
is so complex that they can't even get the regulations worded
correctly. Go to the GPO website and look at 27 CFR 179.11
and then the following section. They are identical except for
one word.
And then are about a jazillion rulings on what does and does
not constitute a machinegun component, about a million court
rulings on said ATF rulings, etc. Even the ATF FAQ on their
website contains a number of very big errors, e.g. that
the AW ban applies to NFA weapons, which is half-true but
really it doesn't in any meaningful way.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
