First, it is not the 'government' that wages a war on guns. As a rule, guns tend to be an agenda of the Democratic party; it just so happens that this particular party currently has executive control.
Second, the so-called black projects are primarily related to military technology, defense maintenance and upgrades, and espionage (including counter-intelligence). I think that they should not be black, but I also think that they are all necessary expenditures. It's quite simple: if you want the government to do more, you've got to give it more dough. But, it seems, Americans these days want the government to somehow magically fix everything that's wrong for free.
But whatever the faults of the Federal government, most of the blame for your local problems lies with your local governments. That is, your state, county, and city bureaucracies. If you want your schools to be better off, your crime to go down, your resources better managed, your environment cleaner, your taxes to be cut -- why don't you attack the government right next door, instead of going after the Federal administration? Did anyone notice that most of the gun buy-back programs and the like are all <u>state</u> programs, and hence are not even federally-sanctioned?
Thirdly, I view the gun-curtailment policy as sane -- and to the same degree as bazooka-curtailment policy would be if personal bazookas were actually legal right now. Lethal weaponry is not a good thing; it is not designed for self-defense; it makes results of violence more tragic than they could have been otherwise. If obtaining a gun was as difficult as obtaining a personal tank -- do you believe that shooter in Texas would have bothered?
Finally, as I have already shown, guns are not an effective protection against repression; only democratic political processes are. The government is not afraid of your guns (why should they be?); rather, the Democrats need a hot political debate they can win to boost their popularity -- and gun restrictions seem like a perfect candidate. Politicians rarely consider real solutions to problems -- because as a rule such solutions are too extensive, too long-term, too controversial and too disruptive for the order of things. Politicians look for quick and cheap widely-acceptable pseudo-solutions that they can brandish in their next campaign. And the Democrats are not the only ones to blaim; the presently-Republican Congress provides a prime illustration with their budget cutbacks in contradiction to important social programs such as medicare, the school system, or space development.
How would you propose that the government cut back on crime? Would you agree to more police presense (more importantly, would you pay for it?) Would you agree to more comprehensive surveillance of civilians? Do you propose that we build even more prisons, and put people away at the slightest sign of deviancy (or alternatively, would you rather execute anyone suspected of crime activity, including the falsely accused and convicted?)
The best regulative policy is always prevention. Personal non-lethal weapons would surely constitute a good prevention of extreme violence. But more importantly, we must eliminate the social factors that drive people to violent crime in the first place. That means eradicating sources and markets of illegal substances. That means providing equal opportunity to all who want it. Which means spending a lot more money on quality pre-schools, high-schools and guaranteed college education for those who want it but can't afford it, raising the minimum wage, tremendously expanding police presense, providing cheap housing for the less fortunate, guaranteeing retirement, free medical services to all, deconstructing urban slums, guaranteeing minimal sustenance to those between jobs (even if only on condition of active supervised training, and only until a job-placement program actually finds the person a new job) -- in short, engaging in a whole swath of socialistic policies that the all-American mucho generation of today does not like. Should all of these policies be sensibly implemented, our tax margins would rise dramatically -- as the rich would literally have to give to the poor; at the same time hopelessness, aimlessness, and destitution would be dramatically cut and crime would be bound to plunge to unbelievable levels. There is a hefty price to be paid for universal happiness and peace -- so we must choose between paying that price, or living rich amidst misery. So far, our overwhelming tendency is toward pure egotism. And while the opposite extreme is equally impossible due to economic competition from abroad, we ought to at least be trying to find a middle ground. But too bad for us, I suppose.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 17, 1999).]