
	Remember me, Tom?  I hope you'll respond, and I seem to
be a Voice of Reason or some such (I've been recieving fan mail,
so naturally my ego is somehwat inflated of late), and hope to
make a few points here.


	And our argument is that you cannot remove them from the people
who need restricting and not remove them from the people who don't.  A
fairly simple problem, given our size and numbers.  Do you agree?  We
all believe criminals, particularly violent criminals, should not have
firearms.  The problem is making a law that does this without trodding
upon the rights of the vast majority.  Nobody here seems to be able to
do it, and I doubt anybody in Norway can either.  Thus, we are left with
a philosophical difference: does the safety of a few justify restricting
the many?  We say "no," while others say "yes."


	Can you provide a method that cannot be abused?  I doubt it.


	Of course.  This is not in contention.  What is in contention
is how much one has to pay.


	It is this "giving a little" that makes Americans wary...
We have seen this argument before.  You might remember how a
Chamberlain "gave a little" to a particular fascist/short asshole,
and how such "appeasement" worked.  While it might work in some
instances, it doesn't work in others, and since we cannot predict
the future we must be cautious in using actions that have a
history of failure.


	Cars are not essential in Norway any more than they are in
the USA.  I'm willing to bet that you have neighbors that would be
willing to drive you anywhere you wanted to go for a price.  Thus,
cars are not essential for your transportation.  However, the
arguments presented show that, since cars are used to kill far more
people than guns in the USA, it makes much more sense to restrict
cars than it does guns.  How one defines "essential" often depends
upon what one is willing to go through for that service.  When we
look at the raw data, such comparisons are not individually weighed.


	This depends upon what the populace was willing to do.  As
Desert Storm proved, even an armed populace won't just revolt even
when given a chance.  Still, would Hitler have done all that he did
with an armed populace?  We have to wonder, as some of his first
acts were to confiscate firearms.  Other points in history show
that dictators were overthrown by arms in the hands of the populace.
Thus, we're left wondering if Hitler would have been overthrown
or if King George was just unlucky in keeping the USA as a colony.
One can argue both sides; one also has to live with each action.


	It is about #2, but so far all proposals to curtail #2 have
wound up enforcing #1 as well.  I only wish that "or" was so logical.


	That was, on my part, purely in jest.  I merely pointed out
how we were from similar backgrounds racially, but of wholly different
backgrounds politically.  I thought this would underscore my point on
how our cultures were so different despite similar heritage.


	BATF can *only* enforce gun/tobaccco/alcohol violations.  Child
abuse is a matter for the individual states and local authorities.


	That hierarchy is a paid-for feed at many sites.  Most people do
not get it for this reason, and I suspect money, not censorship, is the
main reason.  Do you get alt.sex* at your site?  I can't read it here
because of censorship and legal fears, so again our differences show.
You have topless sunbathing, and in the USA we can watch a murder every
fifteen seconds and yet breasts are forbidden on television.