"Is gun control an issue you are willing to die for?"
- Thread starter CMOS
- Start date
I guess one of the things to consider is that I don't think most of the sheeple Anti's understand that we are damn serious about this RIGHT. I think many of them believe our guns are about a silly pastime that we enjoy on the weekends, and that we "should" be willing to "comply" with thes new laws that they propose. Heck, it's for the good of society and our children, right?
This argument, about what we would be willing to do to protect our rughts, could be a useful tool to make some of these sheeple think about the can of worms they are currently opening.
It's advertising friends - let's make them understand where they are pushing us.
CMOS
------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
This argument, about what we would be willing to do to protect our rughts, could be a useful tool to make some of these sheeple think about the can of worms they are currently opening.
It's advertising friends - let's make them understand where they are pushing us.
CMOS
------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
This is just too relevent to the mindset we are up against, laid out like this it shows just how absurd their thinking is, It's courtesy of UdontnomE @ Frugals:
You may be a Liberal idiot if you believe.....
From the news Desk at YACE Freedom 91.9 FM
Help spread the news!
http://www.inficad.com/~csmith/
You may be a Liberal idiot if you believe.....
Posted By: Chris Smith
Date: 9/17/00 11:18
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really
want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him
your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
attributable to the lack of gun control.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but
if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat
to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with
nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control,
Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the
UN arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering
butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts,
a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis,
and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," refer to individuals, but
"the
right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a
National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying
property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the
federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a
state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no
militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands
of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they
are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year
sentence
for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for
California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female
police officer.
>>
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for
possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil
rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are
a
reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor
to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that
prohibits
any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a
million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare
hands.
That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and
his
300 lb. buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided
she uses only her bare hands.
That Sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex, but
gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government
forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and
fingerprinting,
is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of
school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the
awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and
by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, BUT anyone who owns a gun out of fear of
such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and
that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of
the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about
kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to
run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is responsible
social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control,
and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and
statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control
are "just statistics."
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational
adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to
the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to
use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings
at
gun shows.
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army
only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops
need guns.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can
confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that
constitution.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman
with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun
makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that goes
70 mps and only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy
Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against
guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior
to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain
parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it
uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder,
just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a
diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need
larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals
alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive
guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we
issue cops beer instead of guns.
[This message has been edited by scud (edited September 20, 2000).]
You may be a Liberal idiot if you believe.....
From the news Desk at YACE Freedom 91.9 FM
Help spread the news!
http://www.inficad.com/~csmith/
You may be a Liberal idiot if you believe.....
Posted By: Chris Smith
Date: 9/17/00 11:18
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really
want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him
your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
attributable to the lack of gun control.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but
if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat
to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with
nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control,
Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the
UN arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering
butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts,
a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis,
and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," refer to individuals, but
"the
right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a
National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying
property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the
federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a
state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no
militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands
of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they
are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year
sentence
for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for
California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female
police officer.
>>
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for
possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil
rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are
a
reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor
to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that
prohibits
any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a
million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare
hands.
That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and
his
300 lb. buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided
she uses only her bare hands.
That Sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex, but
gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government
forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and
fingerprinting,
is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of
school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the
awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and
by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, BUT anyone who owns a gun out of fear of
such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and
that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of
the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about
kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to
run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is responsible
social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control,
and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and
statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control
are "just statistics."
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational
adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to
the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to
use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings
at
gun shows.
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army
only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops
need guns.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can
confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that
constitution.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman
with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun
makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that goes
70 mps and only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy
Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against
guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior
to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain
parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it
uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder,
just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a
diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need
larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals
alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive
guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we
issue cops beer instead of guns.
[This message has been edited by scud (edited September 20, 2000).]
I dropped a similar question on a liberal friend of mine some months ago.
I asked him if he wanted to see me and everyone else disarmed badly enough to see American blood spilled in the streets over it.
He stopped talking about gun control, at least around me.
And George is 100% correct.
I hope that each of us is just as adamant about asset forfeiture laws and other similar violations of the Constitution as we are about gun control. Yes, I understand that the 2nd Amendment is the lunch-pin to the whole deal, and that armed revolt is the last resort. But what have we collectively done about the other, numerous encroachments into our liberties?
http://www.marchforliberty.org
I asked him if he wanted to see me and everyone else disarmed badly enough to see American blood spilled in the streets over it.
He stopped talking about gun control, at least around me.
And George is 100% correct.
I hope that each of us is just as adamant about asset forfeiture laws and other similar violations of the Constitution as we are about gun control. Yes, I understand that the 2nd Amendment is the lunch-pin to the whole deal, and that armed revolt is the last resort. But what have we collectively done about the other, numerous encroachments into our liberties?
http://www.marchforliberty.org
Scud that was great. I’ve often wondered why someone who believes guns are dangerous and evil will support the police having guns. Of course police are frequently in contact with bad guys but if the gun itself is evil wouldn’t the temptation of having a gun force the police to be bad too?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Is gun control an issue you are willing to die for?"[/quote]
Wrong question, to the wrong people.
I, us, we, are not the advocates of Gun Control. Rather it is another group that has imposed their will upon, I, us, we.
Are they willing to die for Gun Control?
That remains to be seen. I would say they are. They openly state that they wouldn't have a gun in their possession. Enough said then.
Cutting to the point. I enlisted in the military, to serve for what I considered to be my duty to protect this country, etc, etc...
I can see where this might happen again.
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited September 20, 2000).]
Wrong question, to the wrong people.
I, us, we, are not the advocates of Gun Control. Rather it is another group that has imposed their will upon, I, us, we.
Are they willing to die for Gun Control?
That remains to be seen. I would say they are. They openly state that they wouldn't have a gun in their possession. Enough said then.
Cutting to the point. I enlisted in the military, to serve for what I considered to be my duty to protect this country, etc, etc...
I can see where this might happen again.
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited September 20, 2000).]
BadMedicine
Moderator
I look them in the eye and say in a dead cold stare "When somebody without a gun tries to disarm me, what do you suppose is the possible outcome?"
I suppose the million mom march had alot of people (about 250k) but how many well armed men could that *peaceful* demonstartion overthrow? I'm willing to die for my rights, and my country...but I wont be the first to go.
It's not even so much about guns. It's about free speech, and no search and seizure, needing an arrest warrant, and all those other rights that you lose the day they disarm us. Right now they try to disguise these bills, but once they have our guns they don't need to. They can call it the "shoot to kill bill" or whatever, same sh*t that has gone down in the out back.
I suppose the million mom march had alot of people (about 250k) but how many well armed men could that *peaceful* demonstartion overthrow? I'm willing to die for my rights, and my country...but I wont be the first to go.
It's not even so much about guns. It's about free speech, and no search and seizure, needing an arrest warrant, and all those other rights that you lose the day they disarm us. Right now they try to disguise these bills, but once they have our guns they don't need to. They can call it the "shoot to kill bill" or whatever, same sh*t that has gone down in the out back.
I don't believe anyone has said it better since "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
However, lest we not forget, anti's are unarmed (by nature of their arguement, I would assume that they are). How would they confiscate our arms? Well surely, through the use of people that would be armed. This, however, seems to strike me as being odd..
------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!
oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"
However, lest we not forget, anti's are unarmed (by nature of their arguement, I would assume that they are). How would they confiscate our arms? Well surely, through the use of people that would be armed. This, however, seems to strike me as being odd..
------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!
oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"
I live just outside of DC. There were maybe 70,000 fools at the MMM, and that's being generous.
To an earlier question, there are/were approximately 200 to 400 active members in the IRA.
To the topic of the post, I have argued on at least one occasion to gun control freaks that I know that enacting national firearms registration will result in The Second Civil War. This was met by blank stares at first, then a few chortles. Then, when they realized that I was totally serious, it turned back into blank stares. Maybe I got thru to one or two of them. Probably not, but I'll keep trying until the point when talking becomes futile.
100,000 "operatives", acting in independent cells across the 50 states, would put quite a dent in the supply of available g-men in short order.
To an earlier question, there are/were approximately 200 to 400 active members in the IRA.
To the topic of the post, I have argued on at least one occasion to gun control freaks that I know that enacting national firearms registration will result in The Second Civil War. This was met by blank stares at first, then a few chortles. Then, when they realized that I was totally serious, it turned back into blank stares. Maybe I got thru to one or two of them. Probably not, but I'll keep trying until the point when talking becomes futile.
100,000 "operatives", acting in independent cells across the 50 states, would put quite a dent in the supply of available g-men in short order.
Travis McGee
New member
Great thread. I agree that your "frank talk" is a good idea as a "psychological warning shot" to the antis. If that doesn't work, and we continue down the road to tyranny, then ten million scoped high powered rifles will prove to be an awesome force when fired one shot at a time by independent actors. ****** One other thing: I NEVER speak of rebellion, I only speak of upholding my sworn oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. And so help me God, I will do so.
As others have pointed out above, Americans have a traditional response to dumb laws. We ignore them. The two most notable examples would be the NMSL (Nat'l Maximum Speed Limit: remember 55mph?) and the aforementioned Volstead act. Lately, people's impatience with the lack of meaningful reform to the income tax code and the Infernal Revenue Service has led to the rampant phenomenon of folks who deliberately have a little more income withheld than they would owe and then come April 15th, rather than ask for any of it back, they just chuck the 1040 in the circular file. The occurence of Non-Filers has become so common (almost 20% in 1998) that the IRS literally can't cover them all, plus it's hard to garner public sympathy for leaning on someone who gave you too much money and didn't ask for any back.
So, let's go out on a limb with some prognostication, here. Let's say they pass something clearly draconian enough that enough active gun owners can agree that "Yup, this is the point of no return"; national licensing or registration, a handgun ban, whatever. Let's say the oft-bandied-about eighty million figure is a little optimistic for the total number of gun owners, we'll chop it down to, say, 70 mil and say that the other 10 million have forgotten that granpa's sixgun is in the attic and don't even know they're gun owners. Now, obviously some folks will comply out of fear of arrest, others because it was just a "hobby thing". Still others may be deadly serious about their rights, but figure "better a living dog than a dead lion" and many may have children or a spouse whom they are unwilling to expose to the heavy-handed approach that the BATF finds appropriate for compliance enforcement.
So let's say that just one in twenty gun owners has the chutzpa to return the registration form to the government still blank save for a pithy retort. Or that that same one in twenty gun owners can summon the guts to respond to a handgun ban by switching to open carry, no matter where they live. If this was coordinated to occur on a single day, believe me, it would be noticed because...
See, 5% of 70,000,000 gunowners is 3.5 million citizens. I don't think they could squeez that many folks into the penal system if they wanted to, not to mention the effect on the economy if they tried to start busting people. Anyway, I truly believe it will take demonstrations like this at some point in the future to make many of the more "out there" liberal elected officials stop believing their own propaganda and feeling smugly certain that anyone into guns is some hill-dwelling loner and realizing that not only are we more numerous, ubiquitous, and diverse than he thought, but that we're as passionate about our rights as anyone out there
So, let's go out on a limb with some prognostication, here. Let's say they pass something clearly draconian enough that enough active gun owners can agree that "Yup, this is the point of no return"; national licensing or registration, a handgun ban, whatever. Let's say the oft-bandied-about eighty million figure is a little optimistic for the total number of gun owners, we'll chop it down to, say, 70 mil and say that the other 10 million have forgotten that granpa's sixgun is in the attic and don't even know they're gun owners. Now, obviously some folks will comply out of fear of arrest, others because it was just a "hobby thing". Still others may be deadly serious about their rights, but figure "better a living dog than a dead lion" and many may have children or a spouse whom they are unwilling to expose to the heavy-handed approach that the BATF finds appropriate for compliance enforcement.
So let's say that just one in twenty gun owners has the chutzpa to return the registration form to the government still blank save for a pithy retort. Or that that same one in twenty gun owners can summon the guts to respond to a handgun ban by switching to open carry, no matter where they live. If this was coordinated to occur on a single day, believe me, it would be noticed because...
See, 5% of 70,000,000 gunowners is 3.5 million citizens. I don't think they could squeez that many folks into the penal system if they wanted to, not to mention the effect on the economy if they tried to start busting people. Anyway, I truly believe it will take demonstrations like this at some point in the future to make many of the more "out there" liberal elected officials stop believing their own propaganda and feeling smugly certain that anyone into guns is some hill-dwelling loner and realizing that not only are we more numerous, ubiquitous, and diverse than he thought, but that we're as passionate about our rights as anyone out there
You want stupid laws ??? Read this !! I am amazed at how much people are willing to give up simply because "We have a good economy", that seems to be the excuse for everything these days.
> > > > VOTE NO ON Bill 602P!!!!
> > > > > >> > >
I guess the warnings were true. Federal Bill
602P 5-cents per E-mail Sent. It figures! No more free
E-mail! We knew this was coming!! Bill 602P will
permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent
charge on every delivered E-mail.
Please read the following carefully if you
intend to stay online, and continue using E-mail. The
last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the
Government of the United States attempting to quietly
push through legislation that will affect our use of
the Internet.
Under proposed legislation, the US Postal
Service will be attempting to bill E-mail users out of
"alternative postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the
Federal Government to charge a 5-cent surcharge on
every E-Mail delivered, by billing Internet Service
Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed
in turn by the ISP. Washington DC lawyer Richard Stepp is
working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The
US
Postal Service is claiming lost
revenue, due to the proliferation of E-mail, is
costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed
their
recent ad campaign: "There is nothing like a letter."
Since the average person received about 10
pieces of E-mail per day in 1998, the cost of the typical individual
would
be an additional 50 cents a
> > > > > >> > > day - or over $180 per year - above and beyond their
regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to
the
US Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole
point of
the Internet is democracy and noninterference. You are already paying
an
exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency. It
currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from coast
to coast. If the US Postal Service is allowed to tinker with E-mail, it
will
mark the end of the "free"Internet in the United States. Our
congressional
representative, Tony Schnell (R) has even suggested a "$20-$40 per
month
surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the governments
proposed
E-mail
charges
Note that most of the major newspapers have
ignored the story - the only exception being the
Washingtonian - which called the idea of E-mail
surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come"
(March 6th, 1999 Editorial).
Do not sit by and watch your freedom erode
away! Send this to E-mail to EVERYONE on your list,
nd tell all your friends and relatives write their
congressional representative and say "NO" to Bill
602P. It will only take a few moments of your time and
could very well be instrumental in killing a bill we
do not want.
> > > > VOTE NO ON Bill 602P!!!!
> > > > > >> > >
I guess the warnings were true. Federal Bill
602P 5-cents per E-mail Sent. It figures! No more free
E-mail! We knew this was coming!! Bill 602P will
permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent
charge on every delivered E-mail.
Please read the following carefully if you
intend to stay online, and continue using E-mail. The
last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the
Government of the United States attempting to quietly
push through legislation that will affect our use of
the Internet.
Under proposed legislation, the US Postal
Service will be attempting to bill E-mail users out of
"alternative postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the
Federal Government to charge a 5-cent surcharge on
every E-Mail delivered, by billing Internet Service
Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed
in turn by the ISP. Washington DC lawyer Richard Stepp is
working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The
US
Postal Service is claiming lost
revenue, due to the proliferation of E-mail, is
costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed
their
recent ad campaign: "There is nothing like a letter."
Since the average person received about 10
pieces of E-mail per day in 1998, the cost of the typical individual
would
be an additional 50 cents a
> > > > > >> > > day - or over $180 per year - above and beyond their
regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to
the
US Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole
point of
the Internet is democracy and noninterference. You are already paying
an
exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency. It
currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from coast
to coast. If the US Postal Service is allowed to tinker with E-mail, it
will
mark the end of the "free"Internet in the United States. Our
congressional
representative, Tony Schnell (R) has even suggested a "$20-$40 per
month
surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the governments
proposed
charges
Note that most of the major newspapers have
ignored the story - the only exception being the
Washingtonian - which called the idea of E-mail
surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come"
(March 6th, 1999 Editorial).
Do not sit by and watch your freedom erode
away! Send this to E-mail to EVERYONE on your list,
nd tell all your friends and relatives write their
congressional representative and say "NO" to Bill
602P. It will only take a few moments of your time and
could very well be instrumental in killing a bill we
do not want.
Does the USPS own the phone lines, coaxial cable, or satellite transmissions used to transport your email? Does any part of the government own the mail servers and routers used to guide it on its journey?
Of course not. What they are calling "internet postage" here is nothing of the sort; "postage" paid to the USPS represents the cost of 'posting' a letter. In that sense, I am already paying postage for my email; as part of my monthly rate at my ISP.
There's an entirely different word for when the government extorts money from citizens or corporations for conducting private business among themselves that has nothing to do with the govt: that's called a "TAX", not 'postage'. Why don't they just call it "The Efficiency Tax"?
Oh well, watch how a little thing like that, if passed, will synergize nicely with something unrelated like fuel prices or interest rates to slow down the big economic boom.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
Of course not. What they are calling "internet postage" here is nothing of the sort; "postage" paid to the USPS represents the cost of 'posting' a letter. In that sense, I am already paying postage for my email; as part of my monthly rate at my ISP.
There's an entirely different word for when the government extorts money from citizens or corporations for conducting private business among themselves that has nothing to do with the govt: that's called a "TAX", not 'postage'. Why don't they just call it "The Efficiency Tax"?
Oh well, watch how a little thing like that, if passed, will synergize nicely with something unrelated like fuel prices or interest rates to slow down the big economic boom.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!