From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:38:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Hey, Team! We've got another live one! And just when I was getting
all sentimental about not having GRANT CUNNINGHAM to kick around
any more...

In article <1992Sep15.220313.19122@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
|> 
|> |> The following few paragraphs are completely devoid of attempts at
|> |> humor, so quit now if you don't want to read it.
|> 
|> You're humorless, all right.
|> 
|> Unfortunately, you're stupid and bigotted, too.

At least he can spell, lamebrain (since we appear to be in a civilized
mudslinging mode today, don't we? Forgot our lithium this morning, eh?).

|> |> In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
|> |> handguns.  I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
|> |> them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
|> |> serving.  Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
|> |> NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns. People stand to lose money if we
|> |> as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
|> |> never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
|> |> because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
|> |> ownership.
|> 
|> *SNIP*SNIP*, a bit of paraphrasing [classic USENET technique]:

No, a bit of strawman stuffing. Also a classic USENET technique, but
one that's not in nearly so good an odor as mere snipping and editing.

|> "In general, I don't believe people need to have religion, especially
|> fundamentalist religions.  I'm not sure how far I would go in
|> restricting access to them if it was up to me, but the churches'
|> position is cynical and self serving.  Religions are big business. 
|> Many of the people involved in religion manufacture, sell or trade
|> religion. People stand to lose money if we as a society try to limit
|> religion in some rational way.  We'll never resolve what the rational
|> limits to religion should be because the churches are such a powerful
|> lobby against any limits to religion."
|> 
|> The second sounds just as loony as the original, to me.

It certainly sounds loony, I'll give you credit for that. Of course,
it was *you* who wrote it, not he. If you'd chosen an analogy that
made semantic or logical sense, you might have had a shot at making a 
point. But, alas, you seem more interested in arguing with what *you* 
choose to say rather than with what he did.

Well, as I said to somebody else earlier this week who pulled the same
trick, go ahead and argue with yourself if you want. At least then you'd
have a 50-50 chance of winning...no, let me rephrase that. In your case,
the odds would clearly be much lower :^)
 
|> Let's teach people responsibility, then punish them when they overstep
|> the bounds, rather than punishing everyone preemptively by outlawing
|> things or thoughts.

Now, this I can agree with. In addition, let's teach responsibility to
our *corporate* citizens as well. Just how responsible do you consider 
companies to be which manufacture products (call them "Saturday Night 
Specials", or "Zyklon B Gas", or whatever you wish) whose only purpose is 
to kill people? I have no argument with rifles, and Kent hasn't a total
argument with them, but we're both opposed to handguns. How can you
possibly defend handguns? - other than with typical rabid NRA yammering, 
that is. As we all can see.

|> For those who don't get it, try substituting "the press", "freedom from
|> search and seizure", "privacy", "freedom from self-incrimination",
|> "freedom of assembly", etc., into Williams' ramble.

Idiot. You are talking about unambiguous guaranteed rights in the first
ten amendments. Kent was talking about lethal weapons. There is no congruence
between your "ideas" and his. There is no right to endanger the public. The 
constitution guarantees a right to have an armed militia in order to ensure
the general welfare. The Supreme Court has seen fit to extend that guarantee
to cover private ownership of weapons without a militia. But handgun
registration laws, and even outright bans, have never been judged to be
unconstitutional purely on the basis of the ban, despite the Court's
interpretations of the Second Amendment.

|> If you're for any freedom, then you need to be for all freedoms, not
|> just the ones you find modern, convenient, sanitary, or palatable, or
|> you're subject to "divide and conquer" and "salami" politics.

How much freedom does an inner-city teenager have to walk the streets at
night in his or her own neighborhood? How much freedom does the convenience-
store clerk have when a .45 is being held to his head? - or the young 
housewife whose husband is out of town when confronted by a gun-wielding
rapist? (We had one of those happen here just last week.) Seems to me that
they are being denied at least the pursuit of happiness, often liberty, and
frequently life. What are you willing to do to guarantee _those_ freedoms, eh?

|> Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
|> Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
|> 1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
|> that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.

Great .sig, KIRK. I'm totally taken with the concept of 
law-and-order civil disobedience :^)

Don Coolidge
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections