>A Tale of Two Women > >Copyright by MAGGI BAUER > >maggibauer3@juno.com > >The hyper-attention being given to females (we have to assume only moms, >as opposed to singles, are parading in various locations this day) to aid >those who are bent on eliminating the 2nd Amendment birth right of ALL >Americans, which includes men by the way, centers on two states, New York, >and Texas. It centers also, on two women. > >In 1991, in Texas, a deranged man (note I said deranged) shot and killed >among others, the parents of a young woman named Suzanna Hupp. > >In 1993, in New York, a deranged man boarded a train on Long Island, and >shot and killed among others, the husband of Carolyn McCarthy. > >Each of these women became outraged, and rightly so, following these >incidents. > >One, the young woman from Texas, had the means to defend not only herself, >and her parents as well. Unfortunately, she couldn't, because she followed >then current Texas State law, and her means of defense was in her car, not >in her purse. > >The other woman's husband (she was nowhere around) had no means whereby >to defend himself, although' New York has had since about 1938, I'll >stand corrected if wrong, 63 different gun violation laws under what is >called the Sullivan Act. SIXTY-THREE LAWS. Mr. McCarthy could have had >a means of defense. He chose not to, which was HIS right. > >Each of these two woman took a course of action which led them to where >they stand, today. > >I fully appreciate what each of these women must have gone through in >the days and weeks that followed these incidents. And yet I must and >indeed have to say that each has profited. But in two very different >ways, and for two very different reasons. Thus, a Tale of Two States, >a Tale of Two Women. > >The one, Suzanna Hupp, because she was prohibited, by law, from having >with her the means, a handgun, and by her own admission, the capability >of using that .38 S & W, was denied her parents future time with her. > >She has always been angry at a state and government that denied her the >probability that she could have defended herself and her parents. She >went on to elected to the Texas Legislature using her parents untimely >deaths as her "cause", and to become a champion for all the other women, >and men, in Texas, that should the day come, they too, might well have >to do what she was denied. Ultimately, Texas has a right to carry >concealed law. And Suzanna has, this day, spoken on behalf of women and >men everywhere that under that 2nd Amendment, they too, should have the >same right. Suzanna fully understand what "shall NOT be infringed" means. > >Now, we have the other woman, the one from New York, Carolyn McCarthy. >She, too, used her husband's death, to profit. She ran for office and >was elected to the House of Representatives, using her husband's death >as her springboard. She, however, has used her office to at every turn >support the "infringement" of every part of that 2nd Amendment. She is >determined under the tutelage of Bill Clinton and egged on by Chuck >Schumer (N.Y. Sen.) to force the national registration and fingerprinting >of every American whose rights under that Amendment "shall not be infringed," >and force registration and fingerprinting, make no mistake about this, is >a deliberate infringement. > >You know that OXFORD book (the one from Clinton's college, would that >he'd read it ) to which I refer frequently? The one for 49.95 ? Well, >it has a rather good comment on infringement. It says INFRINGEMENT: >an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. > >The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It is a birthright. > >Carolyn McCarthy is encroaching. She's also trespassing. So aren't all >the Clintons, Schumers, and Feinsteins and all the rest who deem ad >nauseum, that Americans will be, shall be infringed upon, and they're >gonna do their utmost to see that fully law-abiding Americans are. They >call forced background checks, registration and fingerprinting a minor >inconvenience. I call it an encroachment and trespass. > >Suzanna Hupp is doing her utmost to see that law-abiding Americans are not >encroached or trespassed upon. Of the two women, which one is standing with >the principals of that birthright? Our Bill of Rights? > ># # # # > >Maggi Bauer is a retired Member of the New Hampshire General Court, >House of Representatives, elected in 1969, serving until end of term >in 1974, from District 5, Carroll City. A staunch defender of the 2nd >Amendment in her former position as an elected official, today, she >continues her struggle to fight the victim disarmament crowd, and win >back our 2nd amendment rights. > >Maggi Bauer may be contacted at maggibauer3@juno.com >

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000

Answers

Sorry about the lack of formatting. Here's another try:

A Tale of Two Women

Copyright by MAGGI BAUER

maggibauer3@juno.com

The hyper-attention being given to females (we have to assume only moms, as opposed to singles, are parading in various locations this day) to aid those who are bent on eliminating the 2nd Amendment birth right of ALL Americans, which includes men by the way, centers on two states, New York, and Texas. It centers also, on two women.

In 1991, in Texas, a deranged man (note I said deranged) shot and killed among others, the parents of a young woman named Suzanna Hupp.

In 1993, in New York, a deranged man boarded a train on Long Island, and shot and killed among others, the husband of Carolyn McCarthy.

Each of these women became outraged, and rightly so, following these incidents.

One, the young woman from Texas, had the means to defend not only herself, and her parents as well. Unfortunately, she couldn't, because she followed then current Texas State law, and her means of defense was in her car, not in her purse.

The other woman's husband (she was nowhere around) had no means whereby to defend himself, although' New York has had since about 1938, I'll stand corrected if wrong, 63 different gun violation laws under what is called the Sullivan Act. SIXTY-THREE LAWS. Mr. McCarthy could have had a means of defense. He chose not to, which was HIS right.

Each of these two woman took a course of action which led them to where they stand, today.

I fully appreciate what each of these women must have gone through in the days and weeks that followed these incidents. And yet I must and indeed have to say that each has profited. But in two very different ways, and for two very different reasons. Thus, a Tale of Two States, a Tale of Two Women.

The one, Suzanna Hupp, because she was prohibited, by law, from having with her the means, a handgun, and by her own admission, the capability of using that .38 S & W, was denied her parents future time with her.

She has always been angry at a state and government that denied her the probability that she could have defended herself and her parents. She went on to elected to the Texas Legislature using her parents untimely deaths as her "cause", and to become a champion for all the other women, and men, in Texas, that should the day come, they too, might well have to do what she was denied. Ultimately, Texas has a right to carry concealed law. And Suzanna has, this day, spoken on behalf of women and men everywhere that under that 2nd Amendment, they too, should have the same right. Suzanna fully understand what "shall NOT be infringed" means.

Now, we have the other woman, the one from New York, Carolyn McCarthy. She, too, used her husband's death, to profit. She ran for office and was elected to the House of Representatives, using her husband's death as her springboard. She, however, has used her office to at every turn support the "infringement" of every part of that 2nd Amendment. She is determined under the tutelage of Bill Clinton and egged on by Chuck Schumer (N.Y. Sen.) to force the national registration and fingerprinting of every American whose rights under that Amendment "shall not be infringed," and force registration and fingerprinting, make no mistake about this, is a deliberate infringement.

You know that OXFORD book (the one from Clinton's college, would that he'd read it ) to which I refer frequently? The one for 49.95 ? Well, it has a rather good comment on infringement. It says INFRINGEMENT: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It is a birthright.

Carolyn McCarthy is encroaching. She's also trespassing. So aren't all the Clintons, Schumers, and Feinsteins and all the rest who deem ad nauseum, that Americans will be, shall be infringed upon, and they're gonna do their utmost to see that fully law-abiding Americans are. They call forced background checks, registration and fingerprinting a minor inconvenience. I call it an encroachment and trespass.

Suzanna Hupp is doing her utmost to see that law-abiding Americans are not encroached or trespassed upon. Of the two women, which one is standing with the principals of that birthright? Our Bill of Rights?

# # # #

Maggi Bauer is a retired Member of the New Hampshire General Court, House of Representatives, elected in 1969, serving until end of term

in 1974, from District 5, Carroll City. A staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment in her former position as an elected official, today, she continues her struggle to fight the victim disarmament crowd, and win back our 2nd amendment rights.

Maggi Bauer may be contacted at maggibauer3@juno.com

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 20, 2000.

Excellent post Observer..I still remember the news accounts of that day in that Killeen Luby's..the gunman slowly walking through the tables of former diners shooting and re-loading..one person with a gun could have stopped the killing shortly after the gunman drove his vehicle through the wall of restaraunt

-- george (jones@choices.com), May 21, 2000.

What is wrong with not letting people who legally should not carry guns from getting them easily? If a convicted felon is trying to get a gun and they are found with one in their possesion then they can be thrown in jail for it, if a person has a permit and is carrying a gun legally then they can protect themselves. Why make it easy for those who should not have guns to get them?

The idea that if people have to register their guns then the next step is taking them away is an exageration. I appreciate the right to carry a gun and have. Although I will not own one until I no longer have persons in my home that do not yet have the reasoning power to exist around a gun (Children). I have owned guns, I took the responsibility that came along with that ownership. Part of that responsibility is why I have not had one at the same time as having young children in my home. If I percieved a need to have one now I would own one and take the steps necessary to make it impossible for children to gain access to it. This is my personal choice for myself. I am not comfortable with the idea that the angry teenager down the street can walk into a gun show and purchace one without effort.

Owning a gun is like owning a car, laws are made to stop people who show lack of responsibility and correct usage of these devices from doing so.

I am not saying we should not own guns, I am saying we should make it difficult for those who have no legal right to own one from purchasing one.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 21, 2000.