Until this afternoon, Minnesota was even a bastion of liberal politics.  Did
you hear of Senator Wellstone's plane crash?  Tragic.  Indeed, his whole
family died.  I certainly hope both political parties do not use this as an
opportunity to make hay, but I would not be at all surprised at the depths
to which either may sink.

I cannot agree with your argument that an armed rebellion would be "quickly
squashed in today's America."  I seem to recall that we didn't fare too well
against the agrarians of Southeast Asia--and just when you would have
thought we'd have learned that lesson from the French who came before.  The
Soviets, with similar military might and technology, also left Afghanistan
with their noses bloodied as well.

I really don't believe that "more" laws regulating firearms will have any
positive effect on the commission of crimes involving firearms, and, with a
bit of time for research, I feel I could esily defend that position.  What
angers me is that the laws that are currently "on the books" with respect to
use of firearms during commission of a crime are rarely enforced through the
courts.

I have a rather lengthy elevator ride to my office floor, which is
surrounded top and bottom by the Prosecutor's and Public Defender's offices,
respectively.  I cannot begin to count the number of times I've overheard an
assistant prosecutor and public defender "trade pleas" on the way to my
office.  Sometimes they will even negotiate pleas on separate cases (e.g.,
"If you give me a guilty on the B&E in the Jones case, I'll drop the felony
trafficking on Smith."!  So, Pam, what does it matter if we write more laws
(that only the "law-abiding" are going to obey) when we don't enforce the
ones that are already on the books?

-Kyle


-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Dahl [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another shooting


True to your word, Kyle, I'm one of those coast inhabitants who feels ok
about laws regulating the sale of weapons (though my forbears landed in
Minnesota). While I realize that one who is determined to obtain a gun can,
I think background checks, etc. make more determination necessary and
thereby save lives. Given that a rebellion of armed citizenry would be
quickly squashed in today's America, I have a hard time understanding the
relevance of arguments citing the importance of arms in protecting us from
our government. I'll admit my bias here toward non-violent means of bringing
change. And it's not too late for the vote. ;)

My $.02

Pam

> The difference lies not so much in whether one is "anti" or "pro" gun as
it
> is whether or not we feel comfortable with to nationalizing more and more
> aspects of our lives.  I daresay that the Europeans and, for the most
part,
> individuals who reside on east and west coasts of the United States are
more
> comfortable with the notion of socialization than those of us whose
forbears
> desired to explore the "New World" further inland than Boston or San
> Francisco.
>
> A large element of our U.S. population is dependent upon the State for
their
> most basic of needs.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  What
IS
> wrong is when that becomes the desired norm.  With that construct we get
> three basic factions:  The group wishing to be "on the dole", the group
> wishing to "administrate the dole" (and its inherent power) and the third
> group, to which I belong, that maintains that the ideal is for me to take
> care of my own needs, IN AS MUCH AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.  It is to this
> third group that the writers of the American Constitution were directing
> that document.  It is this third group that sees the value of personal
arms
> as a viable defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well
> as understanding that there is a mandate for an armed citizenry to keep a
> government of, by and for the people from becoming a government by fiat
and,
> ultimately, jackboot.
>
> -Kyle
>
>