From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Fri Feb 05 1999 - 15:40:22 MST
Ian Goddard wrote:
> At 04:52 PM 2/4/99 -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >So it seems like the HCI propaganda is most probably a complete
> >smokescreen to justify their lobbying. Unfortunately the Clinton's and
> >the Gore's are touting the stats right out of the HCI press releases as
> >if they are fact, and the public is eating it up like gospel. Even
> >congressional Republicans are repeating the anti-gun spin.
> >
> >What is the Harm? you might ask. Well, for starters, people are being
> >prevented from being able to arm themselves against imminent danger,
>
> IAN: Also firearm ownership is a hedge against
> totalitarianism and the atrocities associated
> with it. The majority who assume that the Govt
> is too kind to perpetrate atrocities are woefully
> uninformed and naive!
Exactly. Witness the outpouring of lawsuits being filed by Democratic Party
controlled city and county governments against the gun manufacturers for the
'costs' imposed by the use of guns in their cities where guns are already
illegal (and have the highest crime rates). It looks like the final push is
on, folks. The gun manufacturers are not deep pockets boys like the tobacco
industry (note: $230 million in annual sales versus $30 billion for
tobacco), and despite the fact that guns are perfectly safe when used
legally, according to the accepted standards (i.e. don't point it at
anything you don't intend to shoot, etc) but cigarettes cannot be used
safely in any manner. The cities and the law organizations doing work on
their behalf are out to make guns illegal everywhere.
On a minor hopeful note, the Bridgeport lawsuit saw the dealers and
distributor companies named in the suit released from the case by a judge.
Now only the manufacturers are going to trial.
Countersuits are being filed against the cities by citizens groups for the
reckless endangerment imposed by the local restrictions against law abiding
citizens carrying guns as is their right under the 2nd amendment, saying
that their private health care costs are higher because of the unsafe
environment of Democratic controlled cities that ban guns, and that their
human rights are being violated when they visit those cities by not being
permitted to practice their 2nd amendment rights.
Proponents of the lawsuits claim that user authentication technologies exist
that the manufacturers should be required to incorporate in their designs,
ignoring the fact that those that exist are unreliable and easy to get
around, while others are merely pipe dreams which are not available except
in the laboratory. All of the technolgies will at the very least double the
cost of a firearm, if not triple or quadruple.
They ignore the fact that this will make it impossible for the poor and
working class folks to afford to protect themselves, while the rich can
easily afford firearms even at such inflated prices. Thus the Democrats are
favoring the rich and penalizing the poor, an interesting turnaround. The
dems want this especially because they need a new lever to keep the poor
imprisoned in the grips of the Democratic Party political machine, which
still controls most big cities, now that welfare reform is allowing the poor
and minorities to escape the bounds of the ghetto.
Fortunately, there is plenty of statistical evidence to prove the gun
manufacturers innocent, and the manufacturers might want to countersue to
recover rewards for the REDUCED fatalities thanks to private gun posession
deterring crime.
I can guarrantee that if the cities win, then there will definitely be civil
war across America. I know that the 900 employees of the Newport NH plant
owned by Sturm, Ruger & Co. will not sit idly by, nor will the employees of
SIG Arms, aslo based here in NH.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:00 MST