You mean its perfectly legal to have 50 cal machine guns? Ruby Ridge also involved illegal machine guns.
Moreover citing the NRA as a reliable source is laughable. Their integrity is miniscule. For instance, Wayne Laperriere , the VP of the NRA, has much less integrity than Nixon. for instance he wrote a children's book called the The Eagle Flies, the Ferret Sleeps. On the web page he claims to have a ferret and an eagle as pets. If you notice on the web page for the book, the author's photo shows LaPierre holding a bird (a hawk not an eagle and stuffed), while a ferret sits on his shoulder. Which is absolute crap as that photo is taken from a ferret food advertisement. Its fairly typical of his approach. http://www.skitfaced.com/guntandlungfinch/eagleflies/ I know a bit about the statistics involved (as I've had multiple graduate courses in stats). I've gone through many of the studies cited by the NRA have found quite a few misinterpretations, and in a couple of cases pure distortions of the study results. While pro gun control groups are not above interpreting the stats to support their case, its nothing like the bs that the NRA does. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:43 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Janet Reno in Florida > > > Ruby Ridge? Waco? I am sure that you feel the > unsubstantiated rumors of > child molestation, and drug were more than enough reason to kill the > dividians without trial right? Or the simple fact that a man > didn't think > the same way as the rest of us was enough of a reason to kill > his wife, son > and friend. > > >I have seen several studies that show that having a gun is > no insurance > whatsoever against violent crime. > > I would really like to know who did that research, and who > they worked for. > You have to be very careful in this arena. The CDC was > actually reprimanded > for putting out reports based on next to nothing a few years > ago. I will > admit that most of my data comes second hand through the NRA > and Jew's for > the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Not all of it > though. The reading > I have done on the FBI and DoJ sites has led me to believe > that no matter > how strict you make laws on gun ownership and possession, > criminals will > still find a way to get them. > > I do have to admit that I have used a gun in non-military > self-defense on 2 > occasions, once stopping an attempted rape while I was living > in Maine, so I > have a personal interest in this as well. > > Beth we might as well not even argue this point. I don't > even understand > how you can take your stance. The only reason that gun laws have been > allowed to pass successfully in this nation is because of people's > "feelings". Fact has never backed up the claims of the > anti-gun lobby. I > cannot understand how a parent, a woman, anyone who values > their life, can > be against a persons individual right to defend themselves, > their families > and their property. > > I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Look at how far the > common man has > allowed us to go. We have very little if any private > property rights left. > Towns are seizing prime land from owners at higher and higher > rates. You no > longer have the right to be secure in your privacy, as all the new > "anti-terror" laws have been enacted stripping the > restrictions against > government intrusion. Taxes climb higher and higher, to the > point where > your children receive less than half of whatever you leave > them when you > die. I mean seriously. Please answer this question. Have > you ever read > the writings of the people who founded this nation? Thomas Jefferson, > Alexis de Tocqueville (pro democracy, didn't help found really but has > excellent notes on the times), the Adams, Franklin. Did you > know that on > many occasions these people spoke against democracy? That > constitutional > republicanism is not the same thing? That we have a method > to change our > form of government, amendment, but that instead the federal > government today > legislates over it. Unless you are personally harmed by new > law you cannot > challenge on a it constitutional basis now? > > Income tax. Those words originally meant earned income tax. > Income was > different from wages. Some people in DC just decided to change the > definition. > > The debate we find ourselves in goes much deeper than any one > issue. To go > to the heart of the matter, it revolves around weather you > truly believe in > the principals that this nation was formed under, the laws it > was formed > through. People don't think of the constitution as a law. > Yet that is what > it is. It is the law that lays out the limits to be imposed > on our federal > government, and the rights that the citizens shall not be > denied without due > process. > > The government in it's current form exceeds it's limits at > such length that > I doubt it can ever be returned to it's roots by legislation > alone. Nor do > I think the common man will take his eyes off of the > television long enough > to notice the shackles as they are locked on to him. Freedom > in this nation > is dying, in truth it may already be dead. Only time will tell. > > Timothy Heald > ACP/CCFD :) > > Manager Fayetteville ColdFusion User Group > http://www.fcfug.org > > Fusebox Advisory Committee Member > http://www.fusebox.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:11 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Janet Reno in Florida > > > > I wasn't. I was comparing people who committed acts of > murder against > their > > own citizens, the people they are supposed to serve. > > So Janet Reno committed acts of murder against whom? > > > > BTW Beth gun laws are institutionalized rape and murder > > This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. > Someone who votes > for gun control has RAPED you, or MURDERED you? > Ridiculous. There is not one single iota of sense in this > statement and I > won't bother rebutting them. > > > They remove from > > you your right to protect yourself from harm, theft and > rape. Criminals > > don't follow them. Only the law abiding do. > > These statements are another story, and they are ones worth > speaking to. > > Then we need to enforce our laws better, no? > > I have seen several studies that show that having a gun is no > insurance > whatsoever against violent crime. > > > >How do they make you any > > safer? They only make it easier for the bad people to rob > and kill and > > maim. No more than that. The FBIs own firearms > statistics back that > > up.Over 95% of all firearms related crimes are committed either with > > illegally purchased, or illegally possessed weapons. > > Because poor criminals can't afford weapons from the gun shop. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
