From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?
>
>Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

Apples and oranges?  Why should a waiting period, regardless of which
right it infringes, be judged as anything but an infringement?  

>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

Criminal checks using NCIC would take minutes, not the seven days the
Brady Bunch would like you to believe.  Waiting periods are designed
to harass gun owners (please tell me the value of making someone
who owns 5 firearms wait seven days), drive up further the cost of
guns (by eliminating the gun show discounts), and to set the stage
for tort-law gun bans (the Brady Bunch has stated that they'll sue
any police chief who OKs a background check on an individual who
later commits murder - remember, the Brady Bull does NOT require
a background check but unless the local chief "signs OK" the 
sale cannot go through.  In such a climate, its easy to envision 
chiefs refusing to OK any applications at all).

>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.
>
Tell that to the citizens of Los Angeles, where "protesters" were
burning and looting and the chicken-shit cops ran away. 

Interestingly, the issue of domestic violence is never addressed by
the Brady Bunch et al.  Sure, you'll often hear their tripe "A gun
is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintence
than a burglar."  But the Brady Bunch is intentionally lying in
three ways: First, that number 43 does not appear to have any
basis in the UCRs or the NCSs.  They probably just made it up.
Second, the deterrent value of a firearm is judged by crimes stopped, not 
in the number of corpses piled up (and even if it were, private citizens
routinely kill more felons than sworn police officers).  Third, those
"family members or acquiantences" include cops killing criminals
they've previously arrested, drug dealers killing fellow drug dealers,
and perhaps most importantly, wives justifiably killing their
psychopathic (ex-)husbands to death.  In some ways I find it
genuinely ironic that gun control seems to be part of the subculture
of NOW and other abortion rights groups (e.g., ACLU).  But what of
the woman who was told that her husband was going to come back
and beat her to death?  By sheer physical strength men truly have
an advantage - isn't this woman entitled to defend herself (they
don't call guns "equalizers" for nothing)?  Or are those women
just going to be written off by the Brady Bunch in the name of
their holy war for gun bans?  In my view the "ultimate" litmus
test for a women's rights advocate is OPPOSITION to gun control. 

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?
>
Forcing a gunbuyer to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get a gun makes zero
sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  (S)he has done no
wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better that (s)he if (s)he wants s
gun?  Or a box of ammunition?  Or a reloading press?

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion