[Vision2020] Oath for gun ownership/self-government
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Thu, 15 May 2003 18:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
--0-857608204-1053047143=:59589
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mr. Arnold,
Seems to me if you are just worried about accidental or intentional deaths, you ought to be calling for much higher regulations on cars and who can drive them. In 1999 41,345 people lost their lives due to car accidents. That's only about 8 times your statistic on gun deaths. And how many of those deaths by bullet are due to self-defence?
But the problem is that we have so many regulations. Should cars really be so regulated? Should houses be regulated? And why in the world are baseball bats regulated? We might as well regulate tree branches, since they can be very good clubs too. And rocks, which might kill if they accidentally hit someone hard enough on side of the head.
Regulations rarely fix anything. Morons and criminals, as Mr. Hansen pointed out yesterday, can always get guns and weapons and tools that can be used to kill and murder. Regulations only restrict the law-abiding citizen. Think of how many car deaths are due to people driving with suspended licenses, no insurance, etc. etc. Did all the laws on the books do anything to keep those people alive? NO!
Here's an interesting statistic for your consideration. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.[or anyone else!] That was about 9 years ago, but nonetheless clearly guns are used very regularly for legitimate defense. And get real. How many innocent bystanders die in burglaries, car-jackings, or the like? And the nation over, how many children die in schools due to guns each year? Oh, yes, the media makes a big deal of about 5-12 dead at a school. And indeed each time that happens it is a sad and serious tragedy and needs to be dealt with. The murderers, if they haven't killed themselves yet, need to be put to death for robbing others of life. And some of the teachers ough!
t to be armed with handguns and trained carefully in how to deal with such situations. If the teachers had been armed at Columbine, less people would have died. Criminals lose against armed civilians regularly. But really such things are blown out of proportion. Around the same number of people die in a large car pileup, to put it in perspective. And yet car pileups are national news for just a day or two, if that.
Mr. Arnold, could you please back up your statement that "5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible." Especially the "most of them were accidents" part. I would guess, though I haven't checked, that a majority of them are due rather to intentional killing or murder, whether in self-defense or in assault.
And Mr. Arnold, men have an inherent, God-given right to life. But that is not the same as a God-given right to avoid accidents, whether they be accidental discharges of a firearm or some other accident. If you're so afraid of people dying, like I said before, outlaw cars. Outlaw planes. Outlaw all sorts of things that yearly kill more people than guns. Outlaw slippery roads. Outlaw road-crushing rock slides.
Mr. Arnold, you say "It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use [a gun] to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community." Again, you can't stop criminals from getting guns. Legislating the object, or who gets to possess it, only affects those who are willing to obey the law. And anyone who is going to commit a crime with a gun or threaten his neighbors or his community or his fellow school-kids is obviously not willing to obey the law anyhow.
You are neglecting personal responsibility again. You are blaming the gun, or access to it, instead of putting the guilt upon the person who does the crime, which is where the guilt ought to firmly and immovably rest. Otherwise, your argument must then apply to cars, which are very deadly weapons and almost a full order of magnitude more deadly than the guns. I for one am appalled at the ease with which college kids get cars to drive home on vacation weekends while they are drunk. College kids die from drinking and driving each vacation time. Someone ought to put a stop to this! Maybe you, Mr. Arnold, can start the Crusade against Cars Driven by Drunken Morons... I too am concerned about the poor innocent person riding in that car with the drunken college student.
And that is not to make fun of the serious problem of drunken driving, but to point out that your arguments, Mr. Arnold, do not solve the problem of foolish weapon use, just like more laws won't solve the problem of foolish driving.
And it's all great and good to be concerned about the welfare of the average person on the street, but you, nor anyone else, can force people to be decent law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always get the guns and the poisons and the knives and anything else they want.
As to your idea of simple common sense rules. Back in the war for independence, when boys learned to shoot at age 10, (most of them uneducated), everyone understood personal responsibility and understood that common sense was something that is learned. Which is why they had no laws about guns at all. People were their own gun-smiths, you know. I'm all in favor of citizens being allowed to manufacture their own guns, with the barrels whatever length they want, and whatever caliber they want. And whatever firing speed they want.
No one wants insane, doped, mentally unstable, dangerous people running about the place with guns. But really, Mr. Arnold, you are describing an extreme and trying to make it the norm. The world ain't perfect, Mr. Arnold. And it seems to me that you are discriminating heavily against the uneducated, the untrained, and those who happen to have slightly slower synapse firings than yours and can't quite grasp the nuances of your arguments. And that isn't right, Mr. Arnold. Just the fact that someone isn't educated doesn't mean that they cannot wield a weapon carefully. And there have been some amazing things done by people with low IQ's. And it ought to be standard operating procedure for parents to teach their kids how to handle guns carefully, if they have guns in the house. Perhaps we should make hunters-safety a required course for all elementary and highschool kids. That would be the only potentially reasonable regulation. But that should only restrict those who don't pass!
from buying hunting licenses and that sort of thing. To restrict ownership is to restrict the basics rights of the citizen.
It must be wrong for anyone to possess a TV bigger than 25 inches or a sound system that has more than two speakers. Who needs a bigger TV? Who needs to be able to watch their favorite movies at 36 inches? Who needs to have surround, realistic sound? Who needs a DVD player? VHS works just fine. Advocates of large-screen TV's are harming the argument for the right of owning a television. NOBODY needs to see high quality digital movies in full surround sound with a 42 inch flat-screen. NOBODY.
This argument of yours, Mr. Arnold, reminds me of the arguments that socialists use to attack the wealthy, accusing them of being wasteful because they have "unnecessary" things. The point isn't that the 60 rounds a minute argument says that we need such guns to defend ourselves successfully from robbers. The point is that once regulation starts, especially on such a relatively minute detail as the number of rounds a second, it never stops. Why restrict flash suppressors? Why restrict silencers? Why restrict the number of rounds a second? Most people buy them just to say they have them, the way some people buy trucks, not for use but for show. Others like the feel of a good set of 3-bursts popping out of their gun in a smooth stream. You, Mr. Arnold, have no good reason for restricting the number of rounds a second, except that you don't like it.
Consider this, too. If I were to own a 60-round/sec gun, I would rarely fire it. Think about the cost! I would literally be shooting my money into a stump. And the fact that barrels are not cheap and firing such a gun regularly would mean replacing the barrel regularly.
Mr. Arnold, perhaps you don't understand that automatic or high-powered, large magazine guns are really more of a luxury item, just like the Laramie or the LT edition of a vehicle. Are the heated mirrors and the automatic headlights needed? Of course not. But is it fun to have and to drive? Definitely!
Mr. Arnold, there aren't a whole lot of options. This is a right understood by citizens of countries down through the ages and preserved in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms. Notice it doesn't say "bolt action or semi-automatic 36.06 or smaller rifles". It says "arms". Pretty broad term, Mr. Arnold. We who know and understand the right to bear arms need give NO consessions! Especially not reasonable ones! It is a right, not something to be bargained over. Websters defines a right as "something that one may properly claim as due [him]." That means the whole right, Mr. Arnold. Not just a limited or "abridged" version of the right.
It is sad that in your life there have been irresponsible gun owners/users. But you are comparing the wrong rights. You should be asking "At what point does the right of a moron to murder with whatever weapon he chooses override the rights of my family and friends to live." Any moron has the right to own a gun. But no one has the right to take life without due process of law. That is a moral principle clearly understood by our founding fathers who wrote the right to own any arm into the constitution. That's why murder is illegal, Mr. Arnold. When gun owners start popping off members of your family and friends, that is the time for you, Mr. Arnold, to call for a quick (i.e. within a couple weeks) application of the death penalty. Get the law to apply the right to a quick and speedy trial to the murderer. Only then will murderers think twice about murdering. Strike the fool and the simple gain wisdom. Same goes for car drivers. If anyone who murdered someone because they were !
driving and drunk or on drugs or whatever was immediately tried by jury and executed for the murder, there would be alot fewer murders by car. People would be alot more careful. From a purely economic perspective, the profit (personal whatever) of the murder is not worth the cost (inevitable death).
So Mr. Arnold, it seems to me that you have alot of angst about guns because of your experiences. And they are sad. But I wonder how many of your family members would have been shot at if they were carrying guns at the time.
have a great day, Mr. Arnold.
sincerely,
Joshua Nieuwsma
written in response to:
Mr. Rounds,
You are absolutely correct that I don't know much about the detailed operations and workings of guns. No do I want too, I hate things designed to kill people. But I do know about the sufferings brought on by the destruction of family and friends by morons that legally own and operate guns that could have been prevented by basic simple regulations of who can own a gun. I can get into the gruesome details if you like.
I ask you, if cars are designed to drive, and we regulate them and who can drive them, If airplanes are designed to fly not kill and we regulate them, if baseball bats are designed to hit balls, and we regulate them, and we live in houses, and regulate them, Why does it not make sense to you to regulate something designed to kill so that children and innocent bystanders are not killed?
I am willing to accept "YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN". However, I ask that you please recognize the right of my cousin not to have his brains blown out while he is going for a swim, and the right of my brother to send his daughters school without getting hosed down by a spray of bullets, and for people not to get blown away while hunting because of a moron's inability to tell the difference between a human and a 500lbs furry bear? Why is it too hard to recognize that people have a right not to be shot? 5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible. It is not the killing on purpose that is the problem, you can kill anyone you want without a gun, it is the children sleeping in bed when a bullet rips through a brick wall and enters their head. Or a drunk that grabs one and starts playing with it. Or a child who shows his friend "something really cool". ! It is the troubled emotional teen th!
at grabs the family gun and uses it on himself or his peers. These are things I want to stop. I am not concerned with the drug dealer in a deal gone bad, or the pimp that ripped someone off. I am concerned for the well being of the everyday child, and person on the street that gets shot.
Simple common sense rules like having an IQ, education, and the training to make sure you don't hurt your own children and family, is not to unreasonable to someone who truly does love his family and wants to use a gun for protecting his family. It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use it to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community.
I don't want somebody in my community that is insane, chemically dependent, mentally unstable, a very low IQ, uneducated, untrained, and oblivious as to deadliness of gun, owning one and using it at will. That is scary and very threatening to me, even more then a burglar coming into my home with a knife.
Not regulating and requiring people to meet certain requirements to own and operate a gun is not like not regulating who can be a doctor, firefighter, ambulance driver, taxi driver, or pharmacist. Both can be deadly and cost someone's life.
People who want to do EVERYTHING to make sure they have right to bare arms in the future should be making some reasonable concessions that allow them to keep a gun in the house. Saying things like " No regulations on firearms or the people that will be using them" and guns that shoot people at 60 rounds a minute are "OK" is only hurting the legitimacy of the argument to keep a gun for personal protection. NOBODY needs to shoot 60 people a minute, NOBODY.
I personally could care less if people own a gun or not. You want to own a gun, and go shoot at beer cans in a corn field, have at it, I don't care. But when gun owners start popping off members of my family and friends, you better change the way you are doing things. SO far three different guns owners have shot at 1 family member and 2 friends.
At what point does the right of my family and friends to breath override the the rights of morons to own a gun?
Donovan Arnold
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-857608204-1053047143=:59589
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Mr. Arnold,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Seems to me if you are just worried about accidental or intentional deaths, you ought to be calling for much higher regulations on cars and who can drive them. In 1999 41,345 people lost their lives due to car accidents. That's only about 8 times your statistic on gun deaths. And how many of those deaths by bullet are due to self-defence? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But the problem is that we have so many regulations. Should cars really be so regulated? Should houses be regulated? And why in the world are baseball bats regulated? We might as well regulate tree branches, since they can be very good clubs too. And rocks, which might kill if they accidentally hit someone hard enough on side of the head.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regulations rarely fix anything. Morons and criminals, as Mr. Hansen pointed out yesterday, can always get guns and weapons and tools that can be used to kill and murder. Regulations only restrict the law-abiding citizen. Think of how many car deaths are due to people driving with suspended licenses, no insurance, etc. etc. Did all the laws on the books do anything to keep those people alive? NO!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's an interesting statistic for your consideration. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.[or anyone else!] That was about 9 years ago, but nonetheless clearly guns are used very regularly for legitimate defense. And get real. How many innocent bystanders die in burglaries, car-jackings, or the like? And the nation over, how many children die in schools due to guns each year? Oh, yes, the media makes a big deal of about 5-12 dead at a school. And indeed each time that happens it is a sad and serious tragedy and needs to be dealt with. The murderers, if they haven't killed themselves yet, need to be put to death for robbing others of life. And some !
of the teachers ought to be armed with handguns and trained carefully in how to deal with such situations. If the teachers had been armed at Columbine, less people would have died. Criminals lose against armed civilians regularly. But really such things are blown out of proportion. Around the same number of people die in a large car pileup, to put it in perspective. And yet car pileups are national news for just a day or two, if that. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Arnold, could you please back up your statement that "5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible." Especially the "most of them were accidents" part. I would guess, though I haven't checked, that a majority of them are due rather to intentional killing or murder, whether in self-defense or in assault.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And Mr. Arnold, men have an inherent, God-given right to life. But that is not the same as a God-given right to avoid accidents, whether they be accidental discharges of a firearm or some other accident. If you're so afraid of people dying, like I said before, outlaw cars. Outlaw planes. Outlaw all sorts of things that yearly kill more people than guns. Outlaw slippery roads. Outlaw road-crushing rock slides.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Arnold, you say "It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use [a gun] to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community." Again, you can't stop criminals from getting guns. Legislating the object, or who gets to possess it, only affects those who are willing to obey the law. And anyone who is going to commit a crime with a gun or threaten his neighbors or his community or his fellow school-kids is obviously not willing to obey the law anyhow. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are neglecting personal responsibility again. You are blaming the gun, or access to it, instead of putting the guilt upon the person who <EM>does</EM> the crime, which is where the guilt ought to firmly and immovably rest. Otherwise, your argument must then apply to cars, which are very deadly weapons and almost a full order of magnitude more deadly than the guns. I for one am <EM>appalled </EM>at the ease with which college kids get cars to drive home on vacation weekends while they are drunk. College kids die from drinking and driving each vacation time. Someone ought to put a stop to this! Maybe you, Mr. Arnold, can start the Crusade against Cars Driven by Drunken Morons... I too am concerned about the poor innocent person riding in that car with the drunken college student.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And that is not to make fun of the serious problem of drunken driving, but to point out that your arguments, Mr. Arnold, do not solve the problem of foolish weapon use, just like more laws won't solve the problem of foolish driving.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And it's all great and good to be concerned about the welfare of the average person on the street, but you, nor anyone else, can force people to be decent law-abiding citizens. Criminals <EM>will</EM> <EM>always</EM> get the guns and the poisons and the knives and anything else they want.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As to your idea of simple common sense rules. Back in the war for independence, when boys learned to shoot at age 10, (most of them uneducated), everyone understood personal responsibility and understood that common sense was something that is learned. Which is why they had no laws about guns at all. People were their own gun-smiths, you know. I'm all in favor of citizens being allowed to manufacture their own guns, with the barrels whatever length they want, and whatever caliber they want. And whatever firing speed they want.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>No one wants insane, doped, mentally unstable, dangerous people running about the place with guns. But really, Mr. Arnold, you are describing an extreme and trying to make it the norm. The world ain't perfect, Mr. Arnold. And it seems to me that you are discriminating heavily against the uneducated, the untrained, and those who happen to have slightly slower synapse firings than yours and can't quite grasp the nuances of your arguments. And that isn't right, Mr. Arnold. Just the fact that someone isn't educated doesn't mean that they cannot wield a weapon carefully. And there have been some amazing things done by people with low IQ's. And it ought to be standard operating procedure for parents to teach their kids how to handle guns carefully, if they have guns in the house. Perhaps we should make hunters-safety a required course for all elementary and highschool kids. That would be the only potentially reasonable regulation. But that should only restrict !
those who don't pass from buying hunting licenses and that sort of thing. To restrict ownership is to restrict the basics rights of the citizen.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It must be wrong for anyone to possess a TV bigger than 25 inches or a sound system that has more than two speakers. Who needs a bigger TV? Who needs to be able to watch their favorite movies at 36 inches? Who needs to have surround, realistic sound? Who needs a DVD player? VHS works just fine. Advocates of large-screen TV's are harming the argument for the right of owning a television. NOBODY needs to see high quality digital movies in full surround sound with a 42 inch flat-screen. NOBODY. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This argument of yours, Mr. Arnold, reminds me of the arguments that socialists use to attack the wealthy, accusing them of being wasteful because they have "unnecessary" things. The point isn't that the 60 rounds a minute argument says that we need such guns to defend ourselves successfully from robbers. The point is that once regulation starts, especially on such a relatively minute detail as the number of rounds a second, it never stops. Why restrict flash suppressors? Why restrict silencers? Why restrict the number of rounds a second? Most people buy them just to say they have them, the way some people buy trucks, not for use but for show. Others like the feel of a good set of 3-bursts popping out of their gun in a smooth stream. You, Mr. Arnold, have no good reason for restricting the number of rounds a second, except that <EM>you</EM> don't like it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consider this, too. If I were to own a 60-round/sec gun, I would rarely fire it. Think about the cost! I would literally be shooting my money into a stump. And the fact that barrels are not cheap and firing such a gun regularly would mean replacing the barrel regularly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Arnold, perhaps you don't understand that automatic or high-powered, large magazine guns are really more of a luxury item, just like the Laramie or the LT edition of a vehicle. Are the heated mirrors and the automatic headlights needed? Of course not. But is it fun to have and to drive? Definitely! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Arnold, there aren't a whole lot of options. This is a right understood by citizens of countries down through the ages and preserved in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms. Notice it doesn't say "bolt action or semi-automatic 36.06 or smaller rifles". It says "arms". Pretty broad term, Mr. Arnold. We who know and understand the right to bear arms need give NO consessions! Especially not reasonable ones! It is a right, not something to be bargained over. Websters defines a right as "something that one may properly claim as due [him]." That means the whole right, Mr. Arnold. Not just a limited or "abridged" version of the right. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is sad that in your life there have been irresponsible gun owners/users. But you are comparing the wrong rights. You should be asking "At what point does the right of a moron to murder with whatever weapon he chooses override the rights of my family and friends to live." Any moron has the right to own a gun. But no one has the right to take life without due process of law. That is a moral principle clearly understood by our founding fathers who wrote the right to own any arm into the constitution. That's why murder is illegal, Mr. Arnold. When gun owners start popping off members of your family and friends, that is the time for <EM>you, </EM>Mr. Arnold, to call for a quick (i.e. within a couple weeks) application of the death penalty. Get the law to apply the right to a quick and speedy trial to the murderer. Only then will murderers think twice about murdering. Strike the fool and the simple gain wisdom. Same goes for car drivers. If anyone who m!
urdered someone because they were driving and drunk or on drugs or whatever was immediately tried by jury and executed for the murder, there would be alot fewer murders by car. People would be alot more careful. From a purely economic perspective, the profit (personal whatever) of the murder is not worth the cost (inevitable death).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So Mr. Arnold, it seems to me that you have alot of angst about guns because of your experiences. And they are sad. But I wonder how many of your family members would have been shot at if they were carrying guns at the time. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>have a great day, Mr. Arnold.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>written in response to:</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Mr. Rounds,</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You are absolutely correct that I don't know much about the detailed operations and workings of guns. No do I want too, I hate things designed to kill people. But I do know about the sufferings brought on by the destruction of family and friends by morons that legally own and operate guns that could have been prevented by basic simple regulations of who can own a gun. I can get into the gruesome details if you like. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I ask you, if cars are designed to drive, and we regulate them and who can drive them, If airplanes are designed to fly not kill and we regulate them, if baseball bats are designed to hit balls, and we regulate them, and we live in houses, and regulate them, Why does it not make sense to you to regulate something designed to kill so that children and innocent bystanders are not killed?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I am willing to accept "YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN". However, I ask that you please recognize the right of my cousin not to have his brains blown out while he is going for a swim, and the right of my brother to send his daughters school without getting hosed down by a spray of bullets, and for people not to get blown away while hunting because of a moron's inability to tell the difference between a human and a 500lbs furry bear? Why is it too hard to recognize that people have a right not to be shot? 5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible. It is not the killing on purpose that is the problem, you can kill anyone you want without a gun, it is the children sleeping in bed when a bullet rips through a brick wall and enters their head. Or a drunk that grabs one and starts playing with it. Or a child who shows his friend "something really cool". !
! It is the troubled emotional teen that grabs the family gun and uses it on himself or his peers. These are things I want to stop. I am not concerned with the drug dealer in a deal gone bad, or the pimp that ripped someone off. I am concerned for the well being of the everyday child, and person on the street that gets shot. <BR>Simple common sense rules like having an IQ, education, and the training to make sure you don't hurt your own children and family, is not to unreasonable to someone who truly does love his family and wants to use a gun for protecting his family. It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use it to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I don't want somebody in my community that is insane, chemically dependent, mentally unstable, a very low IQ, uneducated, untrained, and oblivious as to deadliness of gun, owning one and using it at will. That is scary and very threatening to me, even more then a burglar coming into my home with a knife.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Not regulating and requiring people to meet certain requirements to own and operate a gun is not like not regulating who can be a doctor, firefighter, ambulance driver, taxi driver, or pharmacist. Both can be deadly and cost someone's life.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>People who want to do EVERYTHING to make sure they have right to bare arms in the future should be making some reasonable concessions that allow them to keep a gun in the house. Saying things like " No regulations on firearms or the people that will be using them" and guns that shoot people at 60 rounds a minute are "OK" is only hurting the legitimacy of the argument to keep a gun for personal protection. NOBODY needs to shoot 60 people a minute, NOBODY. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I personally could care less if people own a gun or not. You want to own a gun, and go shoot at beer cans in a corn field, have at it, I don't care. But when gun owners start popping off members of my family and friends, you better change the way you are doing things. SO far three different guns owners have shot at 1 family member and 2 friends. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>At what point does the right of my family and friends to breath override the the rights of morons to own a gun?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan Arnold</P></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-857608204-1053047143=:59589--