From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:30:40 GMT

In article <9301091947.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <C0FzJq.D1B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.
edu (Anmar Caves) writes:>>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!
rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:>>>>No, that's injustice, ethically 
bankrupt, and a direct and immediate >>>>violation of her Constitutionally 
protected civil liberties.>>>
>>>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>>
>>What is your point here?  That she should have the right friends in
>>order to protect yourself?
>
>No, that there is a game that you have to play to get a gun permit from
>the state government.  She needs to try a different tactic.

To exercise a constitutioanlly protected civil liberty, she shouldn't need 
tactics at all.

>
>>>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>>>of their damn business.
>>>
>>>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.
>>
>>What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
>>criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
>>citizenry!
>
>In the state of Massachusetts, everyone who has a drivers license
>has a record on the police computers.

And this is GOOD thing?

>
>>>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is 
>>>>unconsitutional.
>>>
>>>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>>>their rights.
>>
>>No, it's part of "due process".  What the hell is your point?
>
>That you believe that a person should be able to buy a gun without
>question, because anyone who would buy a gun from a licensed dealer
>is obviously not a criminal, regardless of the laws in effect.

Not "without question."  Put forth a resonable effort at preventing felons 
from buying guns at dealers that does not have the potential for abuse and 
you will get support.

>
>>>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:  
>>>>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations 
>>>>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.
>>>
>>>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
>>
>>Not all do, and a seizure doesn't have to have an associated arrest.
>
>In Massachusetts it does.

No, it does not.  Seizure laws are federal, and the DEA does what it 
pleases, regardless of state laws.

>
>>>In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>>>than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>>>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.
>>
>>So, exactly what is your point?  That just because you have a warm and
>>fuzzy feeling walking the streets, we all should?  Listen, as long as
>>you are going to insist on not stating your points, we're not going to
>>have an effective dialog.
>
>Do you carry a gun every day?
>
>How often do you have to pull it out and demonstrate that you are armed?
>
>How often do you have to fire that gun due to the fact that your life is
>in danger?

How often so you need your seatbelt?  How would you react to my telling you 
you had to have permission from the state to wear it?  How often do you need 
a fire extinguisher?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns