If we stuck to their constitution we'd have been surprised at just how wise
they were and how well it would have worked.

-----Original Message-----
From: Trisha Cummings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another shooting

Actually I knew that!!!  But given our current politicians who change with
the tide - that's now slightly out of date. How could they know the future,
and how things have turned out when they had only the past to use as a
guideline.

                                  Trisha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barber, Kenneth L. [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:10 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: another shooting
>
> You know the founding fathers had a reason for the firearms clause in the
> 2nd amendment. It was not to protect the rights of people to have a gun to
> hunt, it was  not even to protect the right to have a gun to protect
> yourself from criminals (even though these are legitimate uses for guns)
> it
> was put that so that the populance would have guns  to protect themselves
> from,,,, GOVERNMENT.... OUR FOUNDING FATHERS assumed that a well armed
> populance would overthrow a government that got too oppressive.
>
> Amazing what you learen reading the writing of  the founders, is it any
> surprize that an opressive government either limits what you can read or
> in
> our case see to it that most people do not learn to read.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cleveland, Kyle E. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another shooting
>
> Actually, most incidents of firearms homicide are not "avoidable
> accidents",
> but volitional acts of one criminal killing another criminal--generally
> over
> drugs--but it's doubtful you or I will have much luch changing the other's
> rationale, true?
>
> -Kyle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another shooting
>
>
> I'm a gun control advocate generally speaking, not because outlawing guns
> would make it harder for criminals to get guns - it doesn't - but because
> stupid people legally get guns and stupidly kill others through avoidable
> accidents.  I don't think we have enough gun safety requirements in place.
>
> That's not an issue here, though, because you're right, whether you have a
> gun
> to defend yourself or not would not be a factor in whether you could
> defend
> yourself against the sniper.  You can't.  It's that simple and that's
> what's
> so scary.
>
> Kat
>
> > As much as I admire and respect your opinions,
> > Kat, I really can't fathom
> > how additional firearms legislation is going to
> > help--now or in the future.
> > Does this man, or any criminal for that matter,
> > give a damn about THE LAW?
> > Especially when the laws already on the books
> > are unenforced, under-enforced
> > or plea-bargained into impotence.  I know it's
> > an old wheeze, but there's
> > truth in the saying that "when you outlaw guns,
> > only outlaws will have
> > guns"--at least in our American culture.